[Master] - Bug 647134: W2 2026 - Bug Bash I: Travel Request is conceptually wrong

[v-rohangarg20]

AB#647134

Summary

Bug Bash I: Travel Request is conceptually wrong. Travel Request was built by extending the generic Spend Request pages, so there was no clear distinction between Spend Requests and Travel Requests in the UX, and travel/expense-management concepts leaked into the base pages. This PR gives Travel Request its own dedicated pages (reusing the Spend Request tables as a framework) and renames the Expense Agent's Spend Request concept to Travel Request.

Changes

Dedicated Travel Request pages (app) — built on the existing Spend Request tables:

• New Travel Request Card (7104), Travel Request Subform (7105), and Travel Request List (7106).
• Removed the Spend Request Card / Spend Request List page extensions so the base pages stay generic.

Rename Spend Request → Travel Request (Expense Agent app + tests):

• App-owned fields: Spend Request No. / Spend Request Close → Travel Request No. / Travel Request Close on Expense Report Header/Line and Posted Expense Report Header/Line; Traveler."Spend Request No." → Travel Request No..
• App objects & files: Spend Requests API → Travel Requests API, Spend Request Details API → Travel Request Details API, tableextension Expense Spend Request → Expense Travel Request; folder Spend Request → Travel Request.
• API entities/field controls, captions, tooltips, labels, and permission sets.
• Expense Report navigation actions now open the Travel Request Card.
• Renamed test codeunit Spend Request Test → Travel Request Test and aligned the dependent error-assertion label.

BaseApp:

• Spend Request.AssistEditNo() made public so the standalone Travel Request Card can invoke it.

Scope kept intentionally

• Base references the app must resolve are unchanged: the Spend Request / Spend Request Detail tables, Release Spend Request codeunit, Microsoft.Finance.SpendRequest namespace, and the base Spend Request No. / Spend Request Close fields on Gen. Journal Line.
• 0 errors / 0 warnings across the Expense Agent app and test projects.

[github-actions]

$\textbf{🟡\ Medium\ Severity\ —\ Performance}$

Traveler.OnValidate loads the full Expense User record only to copy Name. Call SetLoadFields(Name) before Get so adding travelers does not read the rest of the Expense User columns unnecessarily.

                if Rec."Expense User No." <> '' then begin
                    CheckDuplicateTraveler();

                    ExpenseUser.SetLoadFields(Name);
                    if ExpenseUser.Get(Rec."Expense User No.") then
                        Rec."Expense User Name" := ExpenseUser.Name;
                end;

Knowledge:

• microsoft/knowledge/performance/use-setloadfields-for-partial-records.md

Posting this finding as an issue comment because inline comment placement failed.

_{👍 useful · ❤️ especially valuable · 👎 wrong - reply with why · AL review agent v1.33.4}

[github-actions]

$\textbf{🟡\ Medium\ Severity\ —\ Telemetry}$

The new top-level Travel Requests API create surface (DelayedInsert = true) does not emit any usage-reporting telemetry on successful insert, unlike the existing Expenses API and Expense Reports API OnInsertRecord paths. Add a dedicated Session.LogMessage after successful creation, with a new stable event ID and the existing category pattern, so travel-request creation is observable in the same telemetry stream.

Posting this finding as an issue comment because inline comment placement failed.

_{👍 useful · ❤️ especially valuable · 👎 wrong - reply with why · AL review agent v1.33.4}

[github-actions]

$\textbf{🟠\ High\ Severity\ —\ Testing}$

The new confirm-handler pattern hardcodes replies through shared globals instead of consuming queued expectations and proving which dialog fired. Tests that use SpendReqConfirmHandler can therefore accept the wrong confirm path without asserting the expected interaction contract, which is exactly the headless-UI anti-pattern this rule warns about.

Knowledge:

• microsoft/knowledge/testing/ui-handlers-in-tests.md

Posting this finding as an issue comment because inline comment placement failed.

_{👍 useful · ❤️ especially valuable · 👎 wrong - reply with why · AL review agent v1.33.4}