Common Pitfalls Migrating C/AL Code to .NETMigrating C/AL (C/SIDE Application Language) code to .NET — or to AL and .NET interoperating in Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central — is a task many NAV/Business Central developers face. The transition promises modern tooling, richer libraries, and better maintainability, but it also introduces pitfalls that can break functionality, reduce performance, or make the system harder to support. This article covers the most common pitfalls, why they occur, and practical steps to avoid or mitigate them.
1) Misunderstanding runtime environments and boundaries
C/AL traditionally runs inside the NAV runtime, with many behavior assumptions (transaction handling, filters, record buffering) baked in. .NET code executes in its own CLR environment and has different lifecycle, threading, and memory semantics.
- Problem: Treating .NET objects as if they are NAV server objects (for example, assuming implicit transaction or session context).
- Consequence: Unexpected behavior for transactions, locked resources, memory leaks, or lost state.
- Mitigation:
- Keep transactional logic in AL/C/AL where NAV server semantics are required; use .NET for stateless processing or well-defined isolated tasks.
- Explicitly manage database transactions and ensure .NET operations don’t rely on implicit NAV state.
- Dispose CLR objects promptly (use using blocks in .NET, and ensure AL wrappers release COM/CLR references).
2) Incorrect handling of data types and nullability
C/AL types (Code, Text, Decimal, Date, Record) don’t map one-to-one with .NET types. Differences in precision, formatting, and null handling cause subtle bugs.
- Problem: Blindly mapping types (e.g., treating .NET string equivalently to C/AL Text, or using .NET DateTime without timezone/nullable handling).
- Consequence: Truncated data, conversion exceptions, incorrect date calculations, or null-reference errors.
- Mitigation:
- Explicitly convert and validate types at the boundary. For example, check for null before calling methods on .NET objects.
- For numeric precision, use .NET’s Decimal to match C/AL Decimal precision; be careful with float/double.
- Handle date/time carefully: consider UTC vs local time and whether the C/AL Date or DateTime2 semantics are needed.
3) Overusing .NET when AL/C/AL would be simpler
.NET offers powerful libraries, but wrapping every small piece of logic in .NET adds complexity.
- Problem: Migrating trivial or NAV-specific logic to .NET (e.g., simple text manipulation, small business rules, or direct Record operations).
- Consequence: Increased maintenance burden, deployment complexity, and potential performance overhead due to interop and marshaling.
- Mitigation:
- Evaluate cost/benefit: keep NAV-domain logic in AL/C/AL; use .NET for complex algorithms, integrations, or functionality not available natively.
- Keep the interface minimal: define small, well-documented APIs between AL/C/AL and .NET layers.
4) Ignoring security and permission differences
C/AL operations are governed by NAV/Business Central permissions and user context. .NET components may bypass or not respect these controls.
- Problem: Executing sensitive operations in .NET that don’t validate NAV permissions or user identity.
- Consequence: Unauthorized data access or changes, audit gaps.
- Mitigation:
- Always perform permission checks in AL/C/AL before calling .NET, or pass the user context and enforce checks on the NAV side.
- For server-side .NET services, ensure they run under appropriate security principals and follow least-privilege principles.
- Log important actions and maintain auditing on the NAV side where possible.
5) Overlooking performance costs of interop and marshaling
Calling .NET from C/AL involves marshaling, context switches, and potential object wrapping, especially with many small or frequent calls.
- Problem: Excessive fine-grained calls between C/AL and .NET (e.g., calling a .NET method inside a loop for a large dataset).
- Consequence: Severe performance degradation.
- Mitigation:
- Batch operations: pass collections or data structures to .NET methods rather than calling per-record.
- Use streaming or pagination where large datasets are required.
- Profile and measure: use performance counters and traces to find hotspot interop boundaries.
6) Neglecting deployment and versioning complexities
.NET assemblies bring versioning and deployment issues that differ from C/AL codeunits and objects.
- Problem: Using third-party or custom .NET assemblies without a clear deployment/upgrade plan across environments (dev/test/prod).
- Consequence: Broken functionality after upgrades, assembly binding errors, or environment drift.
- Mitigation:
- Package .NET dependencies with clear versions; document supported versions.
- For on-prem deployments, ensure assemblies are installed on the server GAC or referenced correctly; for Business Central SaaS, prefer extensions and Azure-hosted services or use supported .NET interoperability mechanisms (where allowed).
- Maintain backward compatibility or a migration strategy when updating assemblies.
7) Insufficient exception handling and error propagation
C/AL and .NET handle exceptions differently. Unhandled exceptions in .NET can bubble up unpredictably into the NAV runtime.
- Problem: Letting .NET exceptions propagate without translation into meaningful AL/C/AL errors or recovery strategies.
- Consequence: Application crashes, unhelpful error messages, loss of transaction safety.
- Mitigation:
- Catch exceptions in .NET, wrap or translate them into domain-friendly messages, and provide error codes or structured responses.
- On the AL side, handle returned error conditions gracefully and rollback transactions when needed.
8) Not accounting for localization and globalization differences
String handling, number formats, date formats, and culture-specific behavior differ between NAV server settings and .NET’s culture settings.
- Problem: Assuming .NET will use NAV’s locale/culture when parsing or formatting.
- Consequence: Misinterpreted numbers/dates, broken imports/exports, UI inconsistencies.
- Mitigation:
- Explicitly pass culture or format information between layers.
- Use invariant culture in .NET for machine-readable formats (CSV, JSON) and specific cultures for UI presentation.
- Test across locales used in your customer base.
9) Loss of transactional semantics for multi-step operations
C/AL operations frequently rely on implicit transactional behavior (Record.RESET, COMMIT semantics). When migrating parts to .NET, transactional boundaries can be lost.
- Problem: Performing multi-step operations across AL and .NET without a clear transactional protocol.
- Consequence: Partial updates, inconsistent state, or orphaned records.
- Mitigation:
- Keep database-changing transactional logic in AL/C/AL or coordinate explicit compensating transactions.
- Use two-phase commit patterns or design idempotent operations where possible.
- Ensure proper rollback or cleanup logic if external .NET calls fail.
10) Poor testing and inadequate automated coverage
Migrating code involves subtle behavior changes; missing tests allow regressions to slip through.
- Problem: Assuming equivalent behavior without writing unit, integration, and regression tests that include AL/.NET boundaries.
- Consequence: Production incidents, data corruption, or functional regressions.
- Mitigation:
- Create unit tests for .NET components and AL tests for integration points. Mock the boundary when possible.
- Include end-to-end tests covering the most common business flows.
- Use test data that reflects real-world edge cases (nulls, large data volumes, locale variants).
11) Dependency on unsupported or deprecated APIs
Some NAV/.NET interop approaches or specific APIs may be deprecated or unsupported in newer Business Central SaaS environments.
- Problem: Using APIs or interop techniques that work on older NAV versions or on-prem setups but fail on SaaS or newer runtimes.
- Consequence: Migration stalls or works only partially in target environments.
- Mitigation:
- Verify platform support for the chosen interop approach (on-prem vs SaaS).
- Prefer official extension frameworks and supported integration patterns for Business Central SaaS (e.g., APIs, web services, Azure functions) rather than relying on unmanaged DLLs.
- Maintain a list of supported/unsupported features for target deployment models.
Practical checklist for smoother migrations
- Map functionality: decide what stays in AL/C/AL and what moves to .NET.
- Define clear interfaces and data contracts between AL and .NET.
- Add robust type conversion and null handling at the boundary.
- Batch cross-boundary calls; avoid per-record marshalling.
- Enforce permission checks on the NAV side.
- Handle exceptions in .NET and return structured errors.
- Manage deployment/versioning of .NET assemblies.
- Test thoroughly across locales, loads, and edge cases.
- Document design decisions, dependencies, and rollback strategies.
Example: converting a per-record transformation to a batched .NET call
Bad (pseudo-flow):
- For each NAV record:
- Call .NET helper.Transform(record.Field) This incurs heavy interop overhead.
Better:
- In AL, collect fields into an array or JSON payload.
- Call one .NET method TransformBatch(list) that returns results for all records. This reduces context switches and marshaling cost.
Conclusion
Migrating C/AL code to .NET or integrating .NET into Business Central brings many benefits but also real risks. Awareness of runtime differences, type mismatches, security, transaction boundaries, deployment practices, and performance characteristics is essential. Plan migration scope carefully, favor minimal, well-defined interfaces, and invest in testing and documentation to avoid the common pitfalls described above.
Leave a Reply