Extensibility Interface for File Scenario

[StefanSosic]

Summary

The extensibility part was separated from PR #4495

Work Item(s)

Fixes #4494

Fixes AB#611443

[JesperSchulz]

@StefanSosic, please check build / test issues.

[pri-kise]

@StefanSosic you changed the behaviour of the method GetFileAccount.

    /// <summary>
    /// Gets the file account used by the given file scenario.
    /// If the no account is defined for the provided scenario, the default account (if defined) will be returned.
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="Scenario">The scenario to look for.</param>
    /// <param name="TempFileAccount">Out parameter holding information about the file account.</param>
    /// <returns>True if an account for the specified scenario was found; otherwise - false.</returns>
    procedure GetFileAccount(Scenario: Enum "File Scenario"; var TempFileAccount: Record "File Account" temporary): Boolean
    begin
        exit(FileScenarioImpl.GetFileAccount(Scenario, TempFileAccount));
        // Needs to be changed to:
        // exit(FileScenarioImpl.GetFileAccountOrDefault(Scenario, TempFileAccount));
    end;

Now this method won't return the Default File Account.
To be non breaking I would suggest to call the new method GetFileAccountOrDefault.

Furthermore I would suggest to add a new procedure in the public facade:

    /// Gets the file account used by the given file scenario.
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="Scenario">The scenario to look for.</param>
    /// <param name="TempFileAccount">Out parameter holding information about the file account.</param>
    /// <returns>True if an account for the specified scenario was found; otherwise - false.</returns>
    procedure GetSpecificFileAccount(Scenario: Enum "File Scenario"; var TempFileAccount: Record "File Account" temporary): Boolean
    begin
        exit(FileScenarioImpl.GetFileAccount(Scenario, TempFileAccount));
    end;

[StefanSosic]

It should not return default at first place, so in this case it's by design

[pri-kise]

Then you should update the documentation.

[StefanSosic]

Since tests are complaining to this point likewise
I think we will do here a bit refactoring, something like you mentioned in first comment. Naming will still be wrong, so thinking still whats best to do, maybe even adjusting tests, but let's see
Thanks for pointing it out 🚀