[main] Ship to address Var/protected var fix

[AleksandricMarko]

What & why

When PostCode variable moved from Var to Protected Var, Label Text000 is also moved accidently.
This is done just in master, so should not be a problem to return back

Linked work

Fixes AB#642246

[github-actions]

Copilot PR Review

Iteration 1 · Outcome: completed

The diff is a pure variable-declaration reordering in three identical layer copies of Ship-to Address.Table.al (NA, RU, W1). No performance, security, privacy, upgrade, or UI concerns apply; al-style-review evaluated the applicable var-block guidance and found the reordering compliant (it in fact corrects a pre-existing access-scope leak where the Text000 label sat under the 'protected var' section header instead of the plain 'var' section).

Knowledge source: https://github.com/microsoft/BCQuality@822cae1b2771ac25f665f73369f69093bd4fd630

Orchestrator pre-filter (13 file(s) excluded)

• layer-disabled (knowledge) : 13 file(s)

_{Findings produced by the Copilot CLI agent against BCQuality at 822cae1b2771ac25f665f73369f69093bd4fd630. Reply 👎 on any inline comment to flag false positives.}

[darjoo]

Is this only in master or 28.x? If so, that's fine.

If this is in any live branches, it is a breaking change.

[AleksandricMarko]

Is this only in master or 28.x? If so, that's fine.

If this is in any live branches, it is a breaking change.

Just in master

[alexei-dobriansky]

Agentic PR Review - Round 1

Recommendation: Reject Changes

What this PR does

This PR moves Text000 back to the normal var section in the W1, NA, and RU Ship-to Address table copies, leaving only PostCode under protected var. The code change is mechanically correct and matches the analogous Order Address table pattern. It does not change runtime behavior, events, or tests, but it does remove Text000 from the protected extension surface.

Suggestions

S1 - Link the required work item
Add the AB# work item that explains why Text000 must move back to a normal var. The PR currently fails the internal-work-item validation, and the missing link makes the necessity and release scope unclear.

S2 - Document the release-scope check
Record that this protected label has not shipped in any live branch. If it has shipped, moving it from protected var to var can break extensions that read it, so the change needs a compatibility plan instead.

Risk assessment and necessity

Risk: Runtime risk is low because the label is only used by Caption(), and no executable logic changes. Compatibility risk is the main concern: this removes a protected variable from table 222 in W1, NA, and RU, which can break extensions if the symbol was ever released.

Necessity: The change appears to fix an accidental protected-scope leak, and the scope is small. However, there is no linked work item, and the PR validation also reports the missing AB# link. Without that record, the change is not transparent enough for merge through this channel.

---

[AI-PR-REVIEW] version=1 system=github pr=9397 round=1 by=alexei-dobriansky at=2026-07-14T11:06:07Z lastSha=e11f3f8a6b764d89b39ebb00c405aae4de04dd12 suggestions=S1,S2