[Event Request] Tableextension 99000860 "Mfg. Requisition Line".ValidateProdOrderOnReqLine

[fridrichovsky]

Why do you need this change?

We need skip standard check logic. Main reason is skip ┬┤ProdOrder.TestField(Blocked, false);┬┤, because in our workflow the order is set as blocked.
There is now another option how to skip standard logic and actual process block validation.

Our event is similar to existing event in '"tableextension 99000751 "Mfg. Purchase Line" extends "Purchase Line"'

    procedure ValidateProdOrderOnPurchLine()
    var
        Item: Record Item;
        ProdOrder: Record Microsoft.Manufacturing.Document."Production Order";
        ProdOrderLine: Record Microsoft.Manufacturing.Document."Prod. Order Line";
#if not CLEAN27
        AddonIntegrManagement: Codeunit Microsoft.Inventory.AddOnIntegrManagement;
#endif
        IsHandled: Boolean;
    begin
        IsHandled := false;
        OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnPurchLine(Rec, IsHandled);
#if not CLEAN27
        AddonIntegrManagement.RunOnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnPurchLine(Rec, IsHandled);
#endif
        if IsHandled then
            exit;

        TestField(Type, Type::Item);

        if ProdOrder.Get(ProdOrder.Status::Released, "Prod. Order No.") then begin
            ProdOrder.TestField(Blocked, false);
            ProdOrderLine.SetRange(Status, ProdOrderLine.Status::Released);
            ProdOrderLine.SetRange("Prod. Order No.", "Prod. Order No.");
            ProdOrderLine.SetRange("Item No.", "No.");
            if ProdOrderLine.FindFirst() then
                "Routing No." := ProdOrderLine."Routing No.";
            Item.Get("No.");
            Validate("Unit of Measure Code", Item."Base Unit of Measure");
        end;
    end;

Describe the request

procedure ValidateProdOrderOnReqLine(var ReqLine: Record "Requisition Line")
var
    Item: Record Item;
    ProdOrder: Record "Production Order";
    ProdOrderLine: Record "Prod. Order Line";
    //------------------------------------------------------------OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine:BEGIN
    IsHandled: Boolean;
    //------------------------------------------------------------OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine:END
begin
    //------------------------------------------------------------OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine:BEGIN
    IsHandled := false;
    OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine(ReqLine, IsHandled);
    if IsHandled then
        exit;
    //------------------------------------------------------------OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine:END

    ReqLine.TestField(Type, ReqLine.Type::Item);

    if ProdOrder.Get(ProdOrder.Status::Released, ReqLine."Prod. Order No.") then begin
        ProdOrder.TestField(Blocked, false);
        ProdOrderLine.SetRange(Status, ProdOrderLine.Status::Released);
        ProdOrderLine.SetRange("Prod. Order No.", ReqLine."Prod. Order No.");
        ProdOrderLine.SetRange("Item No.", ReqLine."No.");
        if ProdOrderLine.FindFirst() then begin
            ReqLine."Routing No." := ProdOrderLine."Routing No.";
            ReqLine."Routing Reference No." := ProdOrderLine."Line No.";
            ReqLine."Prod. Order Line No." := ProdOrderLine."Line No.";
            ReqLine."Requester ID" := CopyStr(UserId(), 1, MaxStrLen(ReqLine."Requester ID"));
        end;
        Item.Get(ReqLine."No.");
        ReqLine.Validate("Unit of Measure Code", Item."Base Unit of Measure");
    end;
end;

//------------------------------------------------------------OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine:BEGIN
[IntegrationEvent(false, false)]
local procedure OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine(var ReqLine: Record "Requisition Line"; var IsHandled: Boolean)
begin
end;
//------------------------------------------------------------OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine:END

Internal work item: AB#625833

[AleksandricMarko]

Hi @fridrichovsky,

Thanks for submitting this extensibility request. To help us process it efficiently, please update the issue to include the required information.

📚 Extensibility Guidelines

Missing Information:

• Alternatives Evaluated: Please explain which existing events or patterns you tried and why they are insufficient for your scenario. You mentioned a similar event exists in "Mfg. Purchase Line", but please clarify what alternatives you evaluated for the requisition line scenario.

• Justification for IsHandled: The current justification "we need to skip ProdOrder.TestField(Blocked, false) because in our workflow the order is set as blocked" needs more detail. Please provide:

  • Specific technical reason why a standard event is insufficient
  • Concrete business logic explaining WHY your workflow requires blocked production orders to bypass validation
  • Exact scenario where bypass is essential
  • Why alternative approaches (redesign, contribution) won't work

  Example of good justification: "We must bypass the blocked check because our automotive manufacturing process requires production orders to be temporarily blocked during quality inspection while still allowing material requisition. The blocked status prevents accidental modifications during inspection, but requisition lines must continue processing. A standard event won't work because the TestField would already have triggered an error before any event fires."

• Performance Considerations: What is the expected execution frequency of this event? How many times will it be called during typical operations (per transaction, per line, per batch)? What is the potential performance impact?

• Data Sensitivity Review: Please confirm that no sensitive data is being exposed through this event parameters, or provide rationale if exposure is necessary.

• Multi-Extension Interaction: What are the risks if multiple extensions subscribe to this event with IsHandled? How should conflicts be mitigated?

Please update the issue with the missing details. We'll automatically re-analyze once updated.

[fridrichovsky]

Hello @AleksandricMarko and @JesperSchulz,
Sorry, but I don't understand this AI generated questions these AI questions makes me "unhappy". I tried describe event more then before. I am trying write how event change behavior for another extensions, but I suppose that you can read this in code.
Let's go through the points.
Alternatives Evaluated: As you can see in code there is now events. Zero events means zero alternatives. How we can change function behavior for function where is 0 events. If you new option. Please send mi info and I will change it.

Justification for IsHandled: I described what we need change. OK this can be more description. That we are using functions through API and it means that Orders can be closed. I can't describe how technical machine works. So is not possible describe.

Performance Considerations: How can I know how many times this function is called standard process. From API is same it substitute users.

Data Sensitivity Review: Sensitive data which ?

Multi-Extension Interaction: As you can see in code there is no another events. So it doesn't change. If I write that it doesn't change another events I get same question where AI mentions that "Do not change another extensions" is not enough.

Sorry I am creating events long time I am trying find all time existing events. But last days is really difficult. I understand that you need know more information and that you don't want create each events what developers want. But I am asking for global procedure Insert***** because it se as local. You have global procedure Delete***** in same objects. This is more then logic, that if we have delete procedure we definitely need insert procedure. This should be approved automatically and I also have to explain these points. Another example you have functions for SalesLines and PurchaseLines that do "same work", but for to mentioned tables. Function have some events we ask for similar events for PurchaseLines and we have to explain again same thinks.

Another example #29814. I had to describe performace Consideration. My change was better than bad habbits what you have inside function. So I suggest changes and issue will solve only event. So I spent time for nothing.

I am using AI too, but please human have to check it. Read code and reduce nonsense questions.

Please update your issues for extensions and add to template your questions as table and we will fill it and you can review answers in code if we write that there is no change for another extensions.

[AleksandricMarko]

Hello @fridrichovsky

First of all, thank you for sharing feedback.
Yes, we are trying to incorporate AI in this process but with the idea to make it better - to have faster respond and implementation of your requests. It is not ideal, but we are constantly improving it.

For IsHandled events, we have some set of questions you need to answer - manuals are part of the "new issue" request form

Reason for this is we have a lot IsHandled events and generally speaking they are not greatest thing in our code. We understand that they could be very useful, but they are also very painful when we talk about code refactoring and some flow issues.
That is why we are pushing you to at least explore is there anything existing (not just in the particular procedure) which could be used, as many requestors just ask for new (without any check)

Of course, humans are nor excluded from this process and will not be, just supported with AI.

@JesperSchulz

[fridrichovsky]

Hello @AleksandricMarko,
thank you for your answer with links. What I thought was preset table in issue. Nevermind. I understand that IsHandled is bad idea. I know. We could raise base events from our modules when events was created as global procedure in past. I know that there was problem with this so you have to create events as local procedures. This change game because we can't say function is handled without simulate raise base events in our code. It change behavior for other extensions. So IsHandled is not good idea.

This issue was created because IsHandled was in previous function. You moved function to different object, but you removed event. This is breaking change from our point of view, because we switched code to new object and we lost used event. This is not good change from MS side. Here I supposed that you take care my comment about old function and moved function without more explains.

Ok. question. Do you prefer create event where will be parameter SkipTestBlocked and you create required change? So there is no IsHandled, but it is particular change for our needs. We suggested event with IsHandled because we are thinking in global scope, that we solve by this event our needs and event is created usable for more cases then our.

[AleksandricMarko]

Hello @fridrichovsky

"Skip" events could be better option as from the parameter name should be clear what is intent (unlike IsHandled where part of code is skipped and we have no idea why). But i can`t say in general that they are always better. Ideally if we need to provide a point to skip standard code that would be at the beginning of the procedure where that procedure is with clear single purpose.

Generally, we are pushing you to provide more info about why change is needed as maybe base code can/should be done differently so new event is not needed. All depends on the situation.

[fridrichovsky]

Hello @AleksandricMarko,
I like idea that MS change base, but we both know really long process for this :-). Events are not only for partner modules, but sometimes for customers and their changes and customers don't want wait. So events are more quick.

But I understand we will try skip IsHandled and use more clear parameters when it make sense. Thank you for clear information. Last question is do you want change issue for this clear parameter?

[AleksandricMarko]

@fridrichovsky
What fits you the best

[fridrichovsky]

Hello @AleksandricMarko,
Keep the IsHandled in this case and new cases I will create with clear variables if it will be possible.

[AleksandricMarko]

✅ Analysis complete - approved for implementation

---

Implementation:

Add an integration event OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine with an IsHandled parameter at the beginning of the ValidateProdOrderOnReqLine() procedure in tableextension 99000860 "Mfg. Requisition Line".

Location in ValidateProdOrderOnReqLine() procedure (around line 474):

procedure ValidateProdOrderOnReqLine(var ReqLine: Record "Requisition Line")
var
    Item: Record Item;
    ProdOrder: Record "Production Order";
    ProdOrderLine: Record "Prod. Order Line";
    IsHandled: Boolean;
begin
    IsHandled := false;
    OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine(ReqLine, IsHandled);
    if IsHandled then
        exit;

    ReqLine.TestField(Type, ReqLine.Type::Item);

    if ProdOrder.Get(ProdOrder.Status::Released, ReqLine."Prod. Order No.") then begin
        ProdOrder.TestField(Blocked, false);
        ProdOrderLine.SetRange(Status, ProdOrderLine.Status::Released);
        ProdOrderLine.SetRange("Prod. Order No.", ReqLine."Prod. Order No.");
        ProdOrderLine.SetRange("Item No.", ReqLine."No.");
        if ProdOrderLine.FindFirst() then begin
            ReqLine."Routing No." := ProdOrderLine."Routing No.";
            ReqLine."Routing Reference No." := ProdOrderLine."Line No.";
            ReqLine."Prod. Order Line No." := ProdOrderLine."Line No.";
            ReqLine."Requester ID" := CopyStr(UserId(), 1, MaxStrLen(ReqLine."Requester ID"));
        end;
        Item.Get(ReqLine."No.");
        ReqLine.Validate("Unit of Measure Code", Item."Base Unit of Measure");
    end;
end;

Event Publisher (add at the end of the tableextension with other events):

[IntegrationEvent(false, false)]
local procedure OnBeforeValidateProdOrderOnReqLine(var RequisitionLine: Record "Requisition Line"; var IsHandled: Boolean)
begin
end;

---

File: MfgRequisitionLine.TableExt.al