Remove redundant Prod. Order No. fields from Subc. Item Ledger Entry (AB#620746)#7932
Open
Remove redundant Prod. Order No. fields from Subc. Item Ledger Entry (AB#620746)#7932
Conversation
…(AB#620746) The Subcontracting app's Item Ledger Entry table extension contained two custom fields—"Prod. Order No." (99001510) and "Prod. Order Line No." (99001511)—that duplicated the base ILE fields "Order No." (field 91) and "Order Line No." (field 92) when Order Type = Production. These redundant fields were written during posting but never read back, since all existing lookups already use the base fields. Removed the two redundant fields and their key segment from the table extension, removed the corresponding assignments in UpdateNewItemLedgerEntry, and removed the two hidden column fields from the ILE page extension. Added a regression test (AB#620746) verifying that subcontracting purchase receipt posting still creates the ILE correctly with the remaining custom Subcontracting fields accessible. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AL Documentation Audit
Documentation gaps were detected in the following apps:
- Subcontracting-Test: 0% documentation coverage
- Subcontracting: 0% documentation coverage
To generate documentation, run /al-docs init or /al-docs update using GitHub Copilot CLI or Claude Code.
This review is for awareness to help keep documentation in sync with code changes. It is okay to dismiss this request.
…Subcontracting/620746-RemoveProdOrderNo
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
"Prod. Order No."field 99001510 and"Prod. Order Line No."field 99001511) that were redundant with the baseItem Ledger Entryfields"Order No."(field 91) and"Order Line No."(field 92) whenOrder Type = Production.Key99001500segment, the two hidden columns from the ILE page extension, and the two assignment lines fromUpdateNewItemLedgerEntry.PostingSubcontractingPurchReceiptCreatesILEWithSubcFields(codeunit 139989) verifying posting still works and the remaining custom ILE fields are accessible.Root cause
The original Subcontracting app duplicated production-order traceability that BC's base ILE already provides via
"Order Type"/"Order No."/"Order Line No.". The custom fields added unnecessary schema weight and created two sources of truth.Test plan
PostingSubcontractingPurchReceiptCreatesILEWithSubcFields(new, codeunitSubc. Subcontracting Test139989) — verifies posting creates ILE without error and remaining Subcontracting ILE fields are accessibleItem Ledger Entryin App or Test sourceFixes AB#620746
🤖 Generated with Claude Code