What it decides
- Rule
SPO-SPFX-001- Applies to
sharepoint·site- Default severity
- low
- Basis
- convention
On what authority
Microsoft neither requires an upgrade nor warns about the gap: the product reports both versions and offers the action, and leaving a site on an older package is a supported state. Our position is that an unclaimed update is a decision somebody made once and then stopped making, and that it belongs on a list. An organisation that pins versions on purpose can reasonably decline this rule, and should record that it does.
This basis carries no external source, and that is the type saying so: a convention is this product's own threshold rather than a vendor's, and attaching a page that does not state it would be worse than admitting authorship.
What it needs to decide
spfx.upgradable_count
Without these facts the rule answers unknown, which is not a pass and is not a failure: it is the rule saying the evidence could not settle the question.
Where the evidence comes from
spfx: a site's app catalog: which solutions lag their version · negative path validated
What a pass does not establish
A catalog where every solution is current says nothing about whether any of them still works, is maintained by anybody, or should be there at all. This rule compares two version numbers.
- It reads one catalog, the one the collector was pointed at. A tenant catalog and a site collection catalog are separate, and a solution current in one can be behind in the other.
- There is no rule here about an unused solution, and there cannot be one from this evidence. See the note in the profile.
Source
The rule as the Engine holds it, at the revision this page was generated from: 1.0.0b6@b4bf9c325233.
Generated from capability-manifest/1.0.0 at1.0.0b6@b4bf9c325233, contract1.0.0b6. Every fact on this page is the Engine's; this site publishes it and does not maintain it.