[Event Request] - Codeunit 5920 ServItemManagement - Add integration event to skip service item creation confirmation dialog

[auzhhv]

Why do you need this change?

Whay was #30382 closed?
I agreed with the bot

Describe the request

.
Internal work item: AB#646064

[github-actions]

Hi Håkon Hvitsten (@auzhhv),

Thank you for your extensibility request. To help us process it efficiently, please update the issue to include the required information.

📚 Extensibility Guidelines

Missing Information:

• Current limitation and business/technical justification: Explain the current behavior, why it is a problem, and the business or technical need for this change.
• Detailed proposed solution: Describe exactly how the new event should work, including when it should be raised and how it should allow skipping the confirmation dialog.
• Proposed code change with context: Include the exact target location and surrounding code context for where the event should be added.
• Existing alternatives evaluated: Explain which existing events or extension patterns were considered and why they are not sufficient.
• Why an IsHandled/bypass pattern is required: Justify why this must be an IsHandled-style skip/bypass event instead of a regular event or another design.
• Impact considerations: Address expected performance impact, any data sensitivity or security considerations, and possible conflicts with other extensions subscribing to the same event.

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

Note

Automatically generated by the Triage Agent — advisory only. An engineer will review before any action is taken.

Tip

Not accurate? Reply with /not-accurate (optional: add a short explanation). Your feedback improves future responses.

[auzhhv]

All information was in the original task. I also agreed with the bot. It was still closed by the bot. Can a human review this?

[github-actions]

Hi Håkon Hvitsten (@auzhhv),

Thank you for your extensibility request. To help us process it efficiently, please update the issue to include the required information.

📚 Extensibility Guidelines

Missing Information:

• Current limitation and business/technical justification: Explain the current behavior, why it is a problem, and the business or technical need for this change.
• Detailed proposed solution: Describe exactly how the new event should work, including when it should be raised and how it should allow skipping the confirmation dialog.
• Proposed code change with context: Include the exact target location and surrounding code context for where the event should be added.
• Existing alternatives evaluated: Explain which existing events or extension patterns were considered and why they are not sufficient.
• Why an IsHandled/bypass pattern is required: Justify why this must be an IsHandled-style skip/bypass event instead of a regular event or another design.
• Impact considerations: Address expected performance impact or execution frequency, any data sensitivity or security considerations, and possible interactions or conflicts with other extensions subscribing to the event.

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

Note

Automatically generated by the Triage Agent — advisory only. An engineer will review before any action is taken.

Tip

Not accurate? Reply with /not-accurate (optional: add a short explanation). Your feedback improves future responses.

[auzhhv]

Change event in procedure CreateServItemOnServItemLine.

Add variabel SkipConfirm to skip showing the confirm dialog.

        IsHandled := false;
        // >>>>>>>>>>>
        //OnCreateServItemOnServItemLineOnBeforeConfirmCreateServItem(ServItemLine, IsHandled);
        SkipConfirm := false;
        OnCreateServItemOnServItemLineOnBeforeConfirmCreateServItem(ServItemLine, IsHandled, SkipConfirm);
        // <<<<<<<<<<<
        if IsHandled then
            exit;

        // >>>>>>>>>>>
        if not SkipConfirm then
        // <<<<<<<<<<<
        if not ConfirmManagement.GetResponseOrDefault(StrSubstNo(Text000), true) then
            exit;

        Clear(ServItem);

Be able to trigger the code without needing to confirm.

This was allerede suggested by a bot in #30389 before it was closed for some reason

[github-actions]

Hi Håkon Hvitsten (@auzhhv),

Thank you for your extensibility request.

We couldn't locate the specified procedure/trigger in the codebase.

Target: OnCreateServItemOnServItemLineOnBeforeConfirmCreateServItem in Codeunit 5920 "ServItemManagement"

Did you mean one of these?

• OnBeforeCreateServItemOnServItemLine

Please verify the procedure/trigger name and update the issue. We'll automatically re-analyze once updated.

Note

Automatically generated by the Triage Agent — advisory only. An engineer will review before any action is taken.

Tip

Not accurate? Reply with /not-accurate (optional: add a short explanation). Your feedback improves future responses.

[auzhhv]

Hi @auzhhv,

Thank you for your extensibility request.

We couldn't locate the specified procedure/trigger in the codebase.

Target: OnCreateServItemOnServItemLineOnBeforeConfirmCreateServItem in Codeunit 5920 "ServItemManagement"

Did you mean one of these?

• OnBeforeCreateServItemOnServItemLine

Please verify the procedure/trigger name and update the issue. We'll automatically re-analyze once updated.

Note

Automatically generated by the Triage Agent — advisory only. An engineer will review before any action is taken.

Tip

Not accurate? Reply with /not-accurate (optional: add a short explanation). Your feedback improves future responses.

You can use OnBeforeCreateServItemOnServItemLine if you want, but OnCreateServItemOnServItemLineOnBeforeConfirmCreateServItem exist in BC 28.3 and is closer to ConfirmManagement.

[github-actions]

Hi Håkon Hvitsten (@auzhhv),

Thank you for your extensibility request. To help us process it efficiently, please update the issue to include the required information.

📚 Extensibility Guidelines

Missing Information:

• Why an IsHandled/bypass pattern is required: Explain why this must use a skip/bypass parameter instead of a regular event or another extensibility design.
• Existing alternatives evaluated: Describe which existing events or extension patterns were considered and why they are not sufficient for this scenario.
• Impact considerations: Clarify the expected execution frequency or performance impact of this change.
• Data sensitivity or security considerations: Confirm whether skipping the confirmation dialog has any security, permission, or data sensitivity implications.
• Multi-extension interaction considerations: Explain possible conflicts or interactions if multiple extensions subscribe and try to control the skip behavior.

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

Note

Automatically generated by the Triage Agent — advisory only. An engineer will review before any action is taken.

Tip

Not accurate? Reply with /not-accurate (optional: add a short explanation). Your feedback improves future responses.