Fix AL0254 compile error in Stock Register for Job Work report

[Maria Zhelezova (mazhelez)]

What & why

Platform 30.x uptake fails to compile StockRegisterforJobWork.Report.al (GST Subcontracting, IN localization) with two AL0254 errors on line 324:

StockRegisterforJobWork.Report.al(324,37): error AL0254: Sorting field 'Prod. Order No.' should be part of the keys for table 'Purch. Rcpt. Line'. Add the field to a key definition to improve performance.
StockRegisterforJobWork.Report.al(324,37): error AL0254: Sorting field 'Prod. Order Line No.' should be part of the keys for table 'Purch. Rcpt. Line'. Add the field to a key definition to improve performance.

The Purch. Rcpt. Line data item sorts on "Prod. Order No." (5401) and "Prod. Order Line No." (99000754). Those fields exist only on the Manufacturing table extension Mfg. Purch. Receipt Line (which extends Purch. Rcpt. Line) and are not covered by any key on the base table. Recent AL compilers tightened AL0254 to also validate sort fields introduced by a table extension (earlier compilers only checked base-table fields). Combined with AL0254 defaulting to Error (after the global AL0254 → Warning ruleset override was removed in #10878), the report no longer compiles. No app logic changed — this only surfaces under the newer compiler.

The fix wraps the DataItemTableView sort in a scoped #pragma warning disable/restore AL0254, matching the accepted suppression already used for the Item Ledger Entry sort a few lines above in the same report (added in #10878):

#pragma warning disable AL0254 // Accepted: Object-specific sorting; adding a shared-table key risks schema and performance changes.
                DataItemTableView = sorting("Prod. Order No.", "Prod. Order Line No.") Order(Ascending);
#pragma warning restore AL0254

A covering key is intentionally not added, since altering a shared base/extension table's keys risks schema and performance changes.

Linked work

AB#649216

How I validated this

• I read the full diff and it contains only changes I intended.
• I built the affected app(s) locally with no new analyzer warnings.
• I ran the change in Business Central and confirmed it behaves as expected.
• I added or updated tests for the new behavior, or explained below why none are needed.

What I tested and the outcome

Local build was not performed in this environment (the NAV enlistment initialization requires elevation that isn't available in the current session). The change is a 2-line, comment-annotated #pragma identical in pattern to the existing accepted AL0254 suppression at line 224 of the same report; it only suppresses the diagnostic and does not alter the report's runtime behavior or its sort order. No tests added — this is a compile-only suppression with no behavior change. Please build the app locally and confirm before requesting review; CI on this PR is the safety net.

Risk & compatibility

Minimal. Pragma/comment-only change with no functional, schema, or data impact. It suppresses AL0254 for one object-specific sort whose sort fields come from a table extension without a covering key. Follow-up: once the newly-flagged AL0254 sort sites across BCApps are addressed, the AL0254 Error hardening from #10878 can stay in place.