Skip to content

[Bug Fix] #519: Move Overhead Rate next to Indirect Cost % on Item Card - #12011

Merged
alexei-dobriansky merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
bugs/651342
Sep 30, 2026
Merged

alexei-dobriansky merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
bugs/651342

Conversation

@business-central-bug-fix-bot

@business-central-bug-fix-bot business-central-bug-fix-bot Bot commented Sep 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Bug Reference

Fixes microsoft/BCAppsBugFix#519

Summary

Move Overhead Rate next to Indirect Cost % in the base Item Card's Costs & Posting > Cost Details group, making both indirect-cost components discoverable together for purchased and manufactured items.

Root Cause

Overhead Rate was defined inside the manufacturing Item Card extension's Production group, although it is general inventory costing functionality with ApplicationArea = Basic, Suite. The base Item Card's Cost Details group contained only the related percentage field.

Changes Made

  • src\Layers\W1\BaseApp\Inventory\Item\ItemCard.Page.al: place the existing Overhead Rate control immediately after Indirect Cost %, before Last Direct Cost.
  • src\Layers\W1\BaseApp\Manufacturing\Inventory\Item\MfgItemCard.PageExt.al: remove the original control from Production.
  • Propagate the placement into the APAC, GB, IT, NA and RU Item Card variants through Miapp.
  • Preserve the record binding, caption, exact tooltip, Basic/Suite application areas, inventory-only enabled state and Additional importance. No costing logic or table changes.

Implementation Process

  • Fix iterations: Not applicable - tests not required.
  • Compilation: Full W1 Base Application build succeeded. Country-layer compilation is deferred to Pull Request Build.
  • Publish: Modified W1 Base Application published and exactly attested.
  • Validation: No-test path selected for a layout hierarchy/order change; independent critique accepted without suggestions.

Validation Evidence

No-Test Validation Evidence

  • Tests required by plan: No. No automated tests were created or run.
  • Rationale: The defect concerns control ownership, parent group and sibling order. AL TestPage field-state checks cannot distinguish this relocation; unchanged enabled-state behavior is not a red regression for the reported placement defect.
  • Compilation: Successful full staged build of W1 Base Application using the repository build adapter.
  • Publish: Controlled ordered deployment completed. Readiness schema 2 returned ready, with compiler symbols, runtime dependencies and live endpoint all verified. Exact installed PackageId: e3080ae4-79a2-4dd2-8998-6a4140b5ac36; artifact SHA256: 4BAB98583E2C544E2CA916D0922735FDF2CCE1BB4AA13486D7974C3AD2DB5105. Mandatory inventory health was healthy.
  • Source validation: Exactly one base control, directly after Indirect Cost % under Costs & Posting > Cost Details; none in the manufacturing extension. The moved control block is otherwise unchanged.
  • Manual/external validation approach: Pending human web-client verification. With Essential experience, open purchase and production inventory items, expand Costs & Posting and Show more, and confirm both indirect-cost fields appear together with the existing caption/tooltip. Confirm Overhead Rate is absent from Replenishment > Production and remains disabled for non-inventory/service items. No browser verification is claimed.

Validation Coverage

  • Automated tests not applicable to the layout defect under the approved Test Strategy.
  • Full W1 build, graph readiness, publication and exact installed-artifact attestation completed.
  • Independent read-only critique: Accept, no suggestions.
  • Source placement and unchanged control properties verified.
  • Essential-experience web-client visual verification and personalization checks.
  • Country-layer compilation in Pull Request Build.

Miapp Propagation

  • Layers propagated to: APAC, GB, IT, NA, RU.
  • Files changed by propagation: 5.
  • VerifyMiappSync: Successful; no files remain unintegrated.
  • Conflicts: None; no country-specific changes discarded.

AL Review

  • Status: Skipped - empty engine result.
  • Evidence: The engine produced no report after BCQuality skill-index generation failed on a missing referenced al-performance-review.md action skill. Test-LocalReviewEvidence.ps1 -AllowEmptyReport independently classified the absent report as skipped-empty. The first and only invocation's output and artifact-absence evidence are archived; no earlier blocking findings existed.
  • Disclosure: No AL review verdict is available; findings and coverage are unknown. This is the skill's explicit empty-report exception, not a clean review.

Review Notes

Please confirm the Essential-experience visual placement and existing personalization/extension behavior. The W1 fix and five localized copies retain the original Additional importance and inventory-only enabled state. Country-layer compilation is owned by CI.

Generated by the bc-fixbug skill.


Promoted from microsoft/BCAppsBugFix#526: https://github.com/microsoft/BCAppsBugFix/pull/526

Fixes AB#651342

@business-central-bug-fix-bot
business-central-bug-fix-bot Bot requested a review from a team as a code owner September 28, 2026 20:30
@business-central-bug-fix-bot business-central-bug-fix-bot Bot added the BugFixAgent Created by the BC bug-fix agent label Sep 28, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the Team: SCM GitHub request for SCM area label Sep 28, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the Version 30.0 milestone Sep 28, 2026
@alexei-dobriansky

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Good Sense Reviewer - Round 1

Recommendation: Accept

What this PR does

This change moves Overhead Rate from the manufacturing Item Card extension into Costs & Posting > Cost Details on the base Item Card, immediately after Indirect Cost %. It preserves the binding, caption, tooltip, application areas, importance, visibility, and inventory-item enabled behavior across W1, APAC, GB, IT, NA, and RU, while removing the old duplicate placement.

Problem-solution fit

Fit: Strong

Overhead Rate applies to purchase and manufacturing costing, but its old placement made it appear manufacturing-specific. The new ownership and position put both indirect-cost fields together for the intended item scenarios.

Suggestions

No suggestions.

Risk assessment and necessity

Risk: The change is limited to page layout metadata and does not alter costing logic, stored data, or public APIs. Existing personalizations may need visual confirmation because the control moves between page objects, but the control properties and all repository layer variants are preserved.

Necessity: The move is needed so purchase-item users can find a general costing field beside the related percentage field. Automated tests cannot distinguish the page hierarchy or sibling order, so source placement and build validation are appropriate for this change.


[AI-PR-REVIEW] version=1 promptVersion=4 system=github pr=12011 round=1 by=alexei-dobriansky at=2026-09-29T00:25:50.2652079Z lastSha=07d914c07bb7b82f9f385c880b4590ceb147d893 reviewKey=52c421a5bdaa5509b699f34f5a71f0fd69267a067252bff14da31036f611c94e suggestions=

@alexei-dobriansky alexei-dobriansky self-assigned this Sep 29, 2026
@alexei-dobriansky
alexei-dobriansky added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 30, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit 7ac0858 Sep 30, 2026
178 checks passed
@alexei-dobriansky
alexei-dobriansky deleted the bugs/651342 branch September 30, 2026 11:08

This branch was successfully deployed

1 active deployment
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

BugFixAgent Created by the BC bug-fix agent Team: SCM GitHub request for SCM area

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants