anskaffelser / ehf-postaward-g2 Goto Github PK

View Code? Open in Web Editor NEW

33.0 53.0 37.0 296.54 MB

Specifications part of EHF Post-Award, 2nd generation.

XSLT 15.99% Shell 1.31% Makefile 1.12% Rich Text Format 81.46% CSS 0.12%

ehf ehf-postaward

ehf-postaward-g2's People

Contributors

Stargazers

Watchers

ehf-postaward-g2's Issues

EHF 2.0.3 - Negative credit note still not validated properly

We are still getting error [NONAT-T14-R020]-Tax inclusive amount in a credit note MUST NOT be negative when trying to validate a negative credit note which contains :
cac:LegalMonetaryTotal
<cbc:LineExtensionAmount currencyID="NOK">-167.23/cbc:LineExtensionAmount
<cbc:TaxExclusiveAmount currencyID="NOK">-167.23/cbc:TaxExclusiveAmount
<cbc:TaxInclusiveAmount currencyID="NOK">-209.04/cbc:TaxInclusiveAmount
<cbc:PayableAmount currencyID="NOK">-209.04/cbc:PayableAmount
/cac:LegalMonetaryTotal

I thought this was listed as resolved in the change notes, so probably another small bug?

Validator allows empty country id for AccountingSupplierParty and AccountingCustomerParty

The validator allows for empty or missing CountryId tag for AccountingSupplierParty and AccountingCustomerParty (and probably other party types also)

According to the documentation (from 2014-10-06) this tag is required and also the child tag ID is required, but the validator allows for this tag to be either missing or empty.(we received 3 EHF invoices yesterday with this tag empty

The following is therefore possible

<cac:Party>
    <cac:PostalAddress>
        <cbc:StreetName>Akersgate 16</cbc:StreetName>
        <cbc:CityName>Oslo</cbc:CityName>
        <cbc:PostalZone>0158</cbc:PostalZone>
    </cac:PostalAddress>
</cac:Party>

and also

<cac:Party>
    <cac:PostalAddress>
        <cbc:StreetName>Akersgate 16</cbc:StreetName>
        <cbc:CityName>Oslo</cbc:CityName>
        <cbc:PostalZone>0158</cbc:PostalZone>
        <cac:Country/>
    </cac:PostalAddress>
</cac:Party>

none of the above should be allowed in AccountingSupplierParty orAccountingCustomerParty (and possible others)

Add possibility to use Office2013 document-types as attachments . Issue reported on LinkedIn

Text from LinkedIn: "De "nye" MIME-typene for XML-baserte Microsoft Office-dokument ikke er støttet. Dvs at dette er støttet: application/msword mens dette (korrekte) ikke er støttet: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document"

Validation of invoice to B2C reveiver fails after transition to new schematron ver. 2.0.3.

The validation takes no account of that the files contains AdditionalDocumentReference that qualify them as B2C:

   <cac:AdditionalDocumentReference>
         <cbc:ID>191190</cbc:ID>
         <cbc:DocumentType>elektroniskB2Cfaktura</cbc:DocumentType>
   </cac:AdditionalDocumentReference>

Validation error:
EHF 2.0.1, invoice :UBL-T10-Nogov.xsl:[NOGOV-T10-R031]- An organisational number for seller, buyer and payee MUST be nine numbers..
EHF 2.0.1, invoice :UBL-T10-Nonat.xsl:[NONAT-T10-R018]-Company identifier MUST be specified when describing a company legal entity.

XML fragment from our test for B2C receiver.
The following field is creating an error: <cbc:CompanyID schemeID="NO:ORGNR"/>

cac:AccountingCustomerParty
cac:Party
cac:PartyIdentification
<cbc:ID schemeID="NO:ORGNR"/>
/cac:PartyIdentification
cac:PartyName
cbc:NameEva Marie Vinneng/cbc:Name
/cac:PartyName
cac:PostalAddress
cbc:StreetNameStrandgt. 14/cbc:StreetName
cbc:CityNameBergen/cbc:CityName
cbc:PostalZone5000/cbc:PostalZone
cac:Country
<cbc:IdentificationCode listID="ISO3166-1:Alpha2">NO/cbc:IdentificationCode
/cac:Country
/cac:PostalAddress
cac:PartyTaxScheme
<cbc:CompanyID schemeID="NO:VAT">987654321MVA/cbc:CompanyID
cac:TaxScheme
cbc:IDVAT/cbc:ID
/cac:TaxScheme
/cac:PartyTaxScheme
cac:PartyLegalEntity
cbc:RegistrationNameKunden AS/cbc:RegistrationName
<cbc:CompanyID schemeID="NO:ORGNR"/>
cac:RegistrationAddress
cbc:CityNameMainplace/cbc:CityName
cac:Country
<cbc:IdentificationCode listID="ISO3166-1:Alpha2">NO/cbc:IdentificationCode
/cac:Country
/cac:RegistrationAddress
/cac:PartyLegalEntity
cac:Contact
cbc:ID3150Kun/cbc:ID
cbc:NameOla Nordmann/cbc:Name
cbc:Telephone81509990/cbc:Telephone
cbc:[email protected]/cbc:ElectronicMail
/cac:Contact
/cac:Party
/cac:AccountingCustomerParty

Validation of all mandatory and dependent elements

All mandatory and dependent elements according to EHF specifications should be validated, and an error raised if missing.
Similar change was done in Invoice 2.0.3 revision

Add SalesOrderID to the Invoice/credit note

Text from LinkedIn "SalesOrderID er leverandørens egen ordrereferanse (og ikke kundens ordrereferanse) og vi har kunder som ønsker dette feltet med på fakturaen"

Whitespace where it shouldn't be (config.xml:741)

EHF 2.0.3 - IBAN account number validated as integer

We receive error [NOGOV-T10-R032]-Only numbers are allowed as bank account number if scheme is IBAN or BBAN when trying to validate customer with IBAN.

cac:PayeeFinancialAccount
<cbc:ID schemeID="IBAN">NO8364680521016/cbc:ID
cac:FinancialInstitutionBranch
cbc:ID6468/cbc:ID
cac:FinancialInstitution
<cbc:ID schemeID="BIC">NDEANOKK/cbc:ID
/cac:FinancialInstitution
/cac:FinancialInstitutionBranch
/cac:PayeeFinancialAccount

It is impossible to parse IBAN account number to integer, considering it contains 2 leading characters representing country of origin. Even the sample in the guide contains an IBAN account with those leading characters, so we suppose this is an error of validation.

Scheme

Hey

We are using the Peppol document described here:
http://www.peppol.eu/ressource-library/technical-specifications/post-award/release-candidate

PEPPOL BIS 1A Catalogue Only
Based on this documentation
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/svn/peppol/PostAward/CatalogueOnly1A/20140301-PEPPOL_BIS_1a-400.docx page 6, the Catalogue is based on this schema
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd3-UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc/UBL-Catalogue-2.1.xsd

which is version UBL 2.1 PRD3. Not the UBL 2.1 as there is published here
https://github.com/difi/vefa-validator-conf/blob/master/STANDARD/common/xsd/UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc/UBL-Catalogue-2.1.xsd

PEPPOL BIS 3A Order Only
Seems to be correct

PEPPOL BIS 4A Invoice
Seems to be correct

PEPPOL BIS 5A Billing
Seems to be correct

PEPPOL BIS 28A Ordering
Based on this documentation https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/svn/peppol/PostAward/Ordering28A/PEPPOL_BIS_28a-100.docx page 6, the Order is based on this schema http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cos1-UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc/UBL-Order-2.1.xsd and the OrderResponse is based on this schema http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cos1-UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc/UBL-OrderResponse-2.1.xsd, both is version UBL 2.1 COS1. Again, the Schema at this site, https://github.com/difi/vefa-validator-conf/tree/master/STANDARD/common/xsd/UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc is not the correct version.

PEPPOL BIS 30A Despatch Advice
Based on this documentation https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/svn/peppol/PostAward/DespatchAdvice30A/PEPPOL_BIS_30a-100.doc page 6, the DespatchAdvice is based on this schema http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd3-UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc/UBL-DespatchAdvice-2.1.xsd. which is version UBL 2.1 PRD3. Not the UBL 2.1 as there is published here
https://github.com/difi/vefa-validator-conf/blob/master/STANDARD/common/xsd/UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc/UBL-DespatchAdvice-2.1.xsd

PEPPOL BIS 36A Message Level Response
Based on this documentation https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/svn/peppol/PostAward/MessageLevelResponse36A/PEPPOL_BIS_36A-100.docx page 5 the ApplicationResponse is based on this schema http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cos1-UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc/UBL-ApplicationResponse-2.1.xsd which is version UBL 2.1 COS 1, again, the schema at this site, https://github.com/difi/vefa-validator-conf/tree/master/STANDARD/common/xsd/UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc is not the correct version.

Jacob Mogensen
mySupply ApS
Denmark

Specification of business sector for the invoice

There has been a request to add functionality for how to specify which sector the invoice is covering, example utility sector. Suggestion is to add a document reference with LineOfBusiness=6 (Codelist from E2B, 1=Kort 2=Reise 3=Telecom 4=Transport 5=Frakt 6=Energi 9=Generelle varer).

Example:
cac:AdditionalDocumentReference
cbc:ID6/cbc:ID
cbc:DocumentTypeLineOfBusiness/cbc:DocumentType
/cac:AdditionalDocumentReference

Performance issues with large Invoices in terms of InvoiceLines(1000-2000+)

When validating real world invoices with more than 1000 lines we have discovered severe performances issues.
One such document could take more than 20 minutes using latest VEFAvalidationConf and App

This is the configuration we are experiencing the performance issues

<validate id="urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:bii04:ver1.0#urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biicoretrdm010:ver1.0:#urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol4a:ver1.0#urn:www.difi.no:ehf:faktura:ver1" 
    version="1.6"
    render="true">
    ...
</validate>

We believe the performance issues are in this resources VEFAvalidatorConf\STANDARD\EHFInvoice\1.6\xsl\UBL-T10-Nogov.xsl and VEFAvalidatorConf\STANDARD\EHFInvoice\1.6\xsl\UBL-T10-Nonat.xsl

Could you take a look into this performance issue?
What is your opinion on this?

Validation of data types

Add validation to validate correct formatting of data types. Example VAT no, organization numbers. Similar change was done in Invoice 2.0.3 revision

Cardinality of PartyLegalEntity for CustomerParty

hi, Cardinality for PartyLegalEntity for AcountingCustomerParty need to be change from 0..1 to 1..1 in the online datamodel
http://vefa.difi.no/formatvisning/faktura/2.0/guideline/gl1.htm?http://vefa.difi.no/formatvisning/faktura/2.0/guideline/gl5.htm

Too long text in UBL-10-BiiRules.xsl

Hi!
I have some problems when compiling UBL-T10-BiiRules.xsl.

I include the XSL files in a local .NET project for performing validation of EHF2.0 documents.
But from .NET framework 4.5/Visual Studio 2012 I get the following error: "XSLT compile error. The stylesheet is too complex".

The error is linked to the fact that the test for correct MIME Values in line 1134 is over 31.000 characters long. If I reduce this string down to some place around 28.000 characters, the error disappears.

Has anyone else experienced any problems like this? What did you do to overcome this?
Alternatively - Could this have been rewritten so that it does not conflicts with .NET?
(The problem is the same with the CreditNote counterpart: UBL-T14-BiiRules.xsl)

The problem was not present in the xsl files from "Pre May 2014" (Old EHF 2.0)

Gunnar Vøyenli
Xledger

Implementation Guide EHF Invoicing Process v20_EN.pdf

Hi, the guide has updated 4 days ago, but its actually the one from August 2014.
Next to it is the 2.02 bugfix
The error messages are different eg: NONAT-T10-R003
[NONAT-T10-R003]-The actual delivery date MUST be provided in the invoice according to "FOR 2004-12-01 nr 1558 - § 5-1-1. Point 4" in the new one:
The actual delivery date SHOULD be provided in the invoice according to "FOR 2004-12-01 nr 1558 - § 5-1-1. Point 4 and § 5-1-4", see also “NOU 2002:20, point 9.4.1.4”
d52e1b0

Does it need to be corrected?thanks

Validation error ProfilID/CustomizationID

We often receive files with the same error in in the EHF files
urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol4a:ver1.0
urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:bii05:ver1.0

According to the documentation it should be if Invoice only
urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol4a:ver1.0
urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:bii04:ver1.0

of if Invoice and credit note
urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol5a:ver1.0
urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:bii05:ver1.0

The error from the validator is as expected: Fatal: No entry is found in configuration for identificator

The problem is that the file validates on the difi validation page http://vefa.difi.no/formatvalidering/, I guess the difi web validator ignores the CustomizationID and ProfilID, but it would have been nice if they gave the same result. But just to be sure, the vefa-validator-conf has the correct output, so the files need to be fixed?

Ex:

<cbc:UBLVersionID>2.0</cbc:UBLVersionID>
<cbc:CustomizationID>
urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Invoice-2::Invoice##urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biicoretrdm010:ver1.0:#urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol4a:ver1.0#urn:www.difi.no:ehf:faktura:ver1::2.0
</cbc:CustomizationID>
<cbc:ProfileID>urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:bii05:ver1.0</cbc:ProfileID>

Documentation error in EHF2.0 invoice guide (Norwegian version)

8.3.3 PROFILEID BII05, FAKTURA OG KREDITNOTA
https://github.com/difi/vefa-validator-conf/blob/master/STANDARD/EHFInvoice/2.0/guide/Implementeringsveileder%20EHF%20Fakturaprosess%20v20_NO.pdf

In line for Dokument = Faktura, Norsk mottaker = nei, norsk avsender = ja, the CustomizationID is specified as "urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biitrns010:ver2.0:#urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol5a:ver2.0"
This should probably be "urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biitrns010:ver2.0:extended:urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol5a:ver2.0"

MVA-number. NOxxxxxxxxxMVA

Hi.

With EHF 2.0.3 validation, there is strict with the format for VAT number. It should be xxxxxxxxxMVA but both the example in the dataformat http://vefa.difi.no/formatvisning/faktura/2.0/ and the implementation guide section 6.15 told something else. It is easy to misunderstand so please fix the wording in the guide and the example to reduce the problem about how the VAT number should be.

BR
Bao

6.15 LEVERANDØRENS MVA NUMMER
Leverandørens MVA nummer angis i elementet Invoice/cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cac:PartyTaxScheme/cbc:CompanyID og
er opprinnelig et valgfritt felt, men i følge EU COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2001/115/ må elementet sendes dersom faktura eller kreditnota har en MVA total. Det betyr i praksis at feltet nesten alltid må sendes. For virksomheter registrert i Norge er det organisasjonsnr. etterfulgt av bokstavene MVA (123456789MVA) som skal sendes. Det anbefales bruk av NO som prefiks ved fakturering til utlandet.
Eksempel:
cac:PartyTaxScheme
<cbc:CompanyID schemeID="NO:VAT">NO123456789MVA/cbc:CompanyID
cac:TaxScheme
cbc:IDVAT/cbc:ID
/cac:TaxScheme
/cac:PartyTaxScheme

EHF2.0 invoice files with NO AccountingSupplierParty/Party/PartyLegalEntity is validated OK

According to the documentation, AccountingSupplierParty/Party/PartyLegalEntity is Mandatory, but the Validator does not fail when validating EHF2.0 files without this entity.

Update of PEPPOL Validation artefacts

There has been an update of the PEPPOL Validation artefacts. These must be added to the validation of PEPPOL BIS and EHF in Norway.
Please see http://www.peppol.eu/news/new-validation-package-in-joinup for further details.

Element for buyer in addition to AccountingCustomerParty

We have seen a need for information about the buyer in addition to the payer in the case where those two are not the same. EHF is starting to be used by utility companies (grid and power suppliers) for re-invoicing, and there is a need for having information about the end user (buyer) in addition to the power supplier which is the accounting customer party. The UBL 2.1 spec,which as I understand EHF is a subset of, includes a buyer element (cac:BuyerCustomerParty). The request is to include this element in a future version of EHF.

Add validation rule for schemeID in TaxCategory on line level.

SchemeID for TaxCategory on line level is not validated, should be added.

Blank InvoiceLine/ID allowed?

One of our customers has received files where cbc:ID is blank and still it goes trough the EHF validator without any other warnings then the common not having blank elements. In the documentation it says that InvoiceLine/ID is mandatory. Should the validator given an error or is it allowed?

<cac:InvoiceLine>
    <cbc:ID></cbc:ID>

cbc:TaxExemptionReasonType is optional, but validator indicates error when it is missing.

Issue by Ravatsaas
Friday Oct 03, 2014 at 03:35 GMT
Originally opened as https://github.com/difi/vefa-validator-app/issues/12

Field is optional according to http://vefa.difi.no/formatvisning/faktura/2.0/guideline/gl1.htm?http://vefa.difi.no/formatvisning/faktura/2.0/guideline/gl206.htm

However, the validator generates this error when it is missing:
Error: [BII2-T10-R045]-A VAT exemption reason MUST be provided if the VAT category code is exempt or reverse charge.
Test: (cac:TaxCategory/cbc:TaxExemptionReason) or not ((cac:TaxCategory/cbc:ID='E') or (cac:TaxCategory/cbc:ID='AE')), Location: /:Invoice[namespace-uri()='urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:Invoice-2'][1]/:TaxTotal[namespace-uri()='urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonAggregateComponents-2'][1]/*:TaxSubtotal[namespace-uri()='urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonAggregateComponents-2'][2]

Validation of invoice files with large embedded pdf's

Sometimes our customers send large pdf's in their invoice files, resulting in uber slow validation performace.
Does anybody know the best way to handle this?
We were thinking simply removing the mimecode before validating.

-jan

Customization ID not supported

The CustomizationID:
urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biicoretrdm010:ver1.0:#urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:biixy:ver1.0#urn:www.difi.no:ehf:faktura:ver1
is not supported by the validator, but this is the only document type for invoices under the profile EHF_INVOICE_CREDITNOTE_REMINDER / BIS05

Error in example files, will not validate

The example files for invoices will not validate, the reason is that they contain illegal list identifiers..

For example (old value -> new value)
"UN/ECE 1001 Subset" -> "UNCL1001"
"ISO 4217 Alpha" -> "ISO4217"
"ISO3166-1" -> "ISO3166-1:Alpha2"
"UN/ECE 4461 Subset" -> "UNCL4461"
"UN/ECE 5305" -> "UNCL5305"

unitCodeListID = "UNECERec20" is missing where unitcode="..." is used

Update of PEPPOL Validation artefacts

Adding memory to Tomcat -> application won't start

I increased the java memory Tomcat uses by adding setenv.sh file to bin directory,
with following content:

!/bin/sh

export JAVA_OPTS="-Xmx256m"

After this, Tomcat does not start anymore with this webservice installed.
There is nothing else running on the Tomcat. If I remove the environment change
Have you encountered this situation?

Same CustomizationID in config.xml for EHF CatalogueResponse for Norwegian and international actors

Hi,

You are using same Customization ID in Catalogueresponse for Norwegian and international actors: "urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biitrns058:ver2.0: extended:urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol1a:ver2.0:extended:urn:www.difi.no:ehf:katalogbekreftelse:ver1.0"

<validate 
        id="urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:bii01:ver2.0#urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biitrns058:ver2.0:extended:urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol1a:ver2.0:extended:urn:www.difi.no:ehf:katalogbekreftelse:ver1.0" 
        version="1.0">
        <name>
            <en>EHF Cataloguerespone in Norway, Norwegian actors only</en>
            <no>EHF katalogbekreftelse i Norge, norske aktører</no>
        </name>
        <step id="XSD" file="/STANDARD/common/xsd/UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc/UBL-ApplicationResponse-2.1.xsd" />
        <step id="XSL" file="/STANDARD/EHFCatalogue/1.0/xsl/NOGOV-UBL-T58.xsl" />
        <step id="XSL" file="/STANDARD/EHFCatalogue/1.0/xsl/BIIRULES-UBL-T58.xsl" />
        <step id="XSL" file="/STANDARD/EHFCatalogue/1.0/xsl/OPENPEPPOL-UBL-T58.xsl" />
    </validate>

    <validate 
        id="urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:bii01:ver2.0#urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biitrns058:ver2.0:extended:urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol1a:ver2.0:extended:urn:www.difi.no:ehf:katalogbekreftelse:ver1.0" 
        version="1.0">
        <name>
            <en>EHF Cataloguerespone in Norway, international actor</en>
            <no>EHF katalogbekreftelse i Norge, utenlandsk aktør</no>
        </name>
        <step id="XSD" file="/STANDARD/common/xsd/UBL-2.1/xsd/maindoc/UBL-ApplicationResponse-2.1.xsd" />
        <step id="XSL" file="/STANDARD/EHFCatalogue/1.0/xsl/BIIRULES-UBL-T58.xsl" />
        <step id="XSL" file="/STANDARD/EHFCatalogue/1.0/xsl/OPENPEPPOL-UBL-T58.xsl" />
    </validate>

Correct Customization ID for international actors is "urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biitrns058:ver2.0: extended:urn:www.peppol.eu:bis:peppol1a:ver2.0" (from documentation).

Error in validation for Credit note EHF 2.0.3. Rule [NONAT-T14-R024]-

Hi.
It seems so that there is a error in Credit note validation for line amount when there is AllowanceCharge. The valitaion do not count AllowanceChage. The creditnote line below should not raise any error but it got the following

Error: [NONAT-T14-R024]-Credit note line amount MUST be equal to the price amount multiplied by the quantity, plus charges minus allowances at the line level.

Examle
<cbc:CreditedQuantity unitCodeListID="UNECERec20" unitCode="EA">1.00/cbc:CreditedQuantity
<cbc:LineExtensionAmount currencyID="NOK">-500.00/cbc:LineExtensionAmount
<cac:AllowanceCharge xmlns:cac="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonAggregateComponents-2" xmlns:cbc="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonBasicComponents-2">
cbc:ChargeIndicatorfalse/cbc:ChargeIndicator
<cbc:Amount currencyID="NOK">1000/cbc:Amount
/cac:AllowanceCharge
cac:Item
cbc:NameReturgebyr/cbc:Name
cac:SellersItemIdentification
cbc:IDRETURGEBYR/cbc:ID
/cac:SellersItemIdentification
cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory
<cbc:ID schemeID="UNCL5305">S/cbc:ID
cbc:Percent25.00/cbc:Percent
cac:TaxScheme
cbc:IDVAT/cbc:ID
/cac:TaxScheme
/cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory
/cac:Item
cac:Price
<cbc:PriceAmount currencyID="NOK">500.00/cbc:PriceAmount

BR
Bao

Error with customization id in english guide for invoicing process

Page 62 of https://github.com/difi/VEFAvalidatorConf/blob/master/STANDARD/EHFInvoice/1.6/guide/Implementation%20Guide%20EHF%20Invoicing%20Process%20v1_6_1_EN.pdf

state that for "PROFILEID BIIXX, CREDIT NOTE ONLY" the customization ID is "urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biicoretrdm014:ver1.0:#urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:biixx:ver1.0#urn:www.difi.no:ehf:creditnote:ver1"

This is from what I can see from the norwegian version of the same document, wrong. it should instead be

"urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biicoretrdm014:ver1.0:#urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:biixx:ver1.0#urn:www.difi.no:ehf:kreditnota:ver1"

note the change from "creditnote" to "kreditnota"

BBAN to be used when referencing a norwegian account

We have recieved a request to require the use of BBAN when the account number is to a norwegian account.

Add validation that date elements are formatted YYYY-MM-DD

Add a validation that checks that the dates are formatted according to EHF. Similar change was done in Invoice 2.0.3 revision

EUGEN-T14-R043, CreditNote TotalTax

The bugfix for INVOICE rule EUGEN-T10-R043

seems as though it should be implemented for CreditNote.

A VAT number MUST be nine numbers followed by the letters MVA

[NOGOV-T10-R030]- A VAT number MUST be nine numbers followed by the letters MVA

Is this too strict as some companies are not tax registered and should the PartyTaxScheme be skipped in those cases? Or when there's an incomplete VAT number eg. converting from some other format to EHF 2.03, should we just add the MVA at the end in order to pass the validation?

Test error when building vefa-validator-app

When building with the latest -conf and -app, I get the following error:

Starting test of XML file no: 2.0.2
Starting errortesting based on result:
Starting assertion of error: BII2-T10-R040
Tests run: 5, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 16.547 sec <<< FAILURE!
Running no.difi.vefa.validation.WellFormedTest
[Fatal Error] :1:38: Content is not allowed in trailing section.
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0 sec
Running no.difi.vefa.validation.XSDValidationTest
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0 sec
Running no.difi.vefa.xml.UtilsTest
Tests run: 5, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.01 sec
Running no.difi.vefa.xml.WellFormedTest
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0 sec
Running no.difi.vefa.xml.XmlXslTransformationTest
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.004 sec
Running no.difi.vefa.xml.XSDValidationTest
Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.003 sec

Results :

Failed tests: testFilesFromTestConfiguration(no.difi.vefa.validation.ValidateTest): expected:<[NONAT-T10-R008]> but was:<[BII2-T10-R040]>

Tests run: 22, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0

[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Reactor Summary:
[INFO]
[INFO] validering ........................................ SUCCESS [0.399s]
[INFO] validate-web ...................................... SUCCESS [1.799s]
[INFO] validate-lib ...................................... FAILURE [19.534s]
[INFO] validate-ws ....................................... SKIPPED
[INFO] validate-cli ...................................... SKIPPED
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] BUILD FAILURE
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

XSLT 1.0 not supported?

Hi,

It seems that new EHF 1.5 Schematron XSLT (UBL-T10-BiiRules.xsl) expects parser to support XSLT 2.0? Is there any plans to make those XSLT 1.0 compatible? Basically this requirement restricts that it can be only parsed with Saxon.

./UBL-T10-BiiRules.xsl: round(((round((10 * 10) * number(cac:Price/cbc:PriceAmount) * abs(number(cbc:InvoicedQuantity))) div 100)

xmlXPathCompOpEval: function abs not found
XPath error : Unregistered function
xmlXPathCompiledEval: 1 objects left on the stack.

Thanks,
Jussi Koljonen

EHF1.6 and earlier has been deleted

It is very unfortunat that V1.6 and earlier has been deleted from the project already now, since there are still MANY that still uses V1.6 even though DIFI does not want us to...

I would like these restered for the time beeing until DIFI sees in reality that no more EHF V1.6 are beeing sent..

Inconsistency with CustomizationID for EHF 1.6

Looking at the documentation for custmizationID in the guide I have noticed that there is an inconsistancy with the BIIXY profile

https://github.com/difi/vefa-validator-conf/blob/master/STANDARD/EHFInvoice/1.6/guide/Implementeringsveileder%20EHF%20Fakturaprosess%20v1%206_1_NO.pdf

Invoice: urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biicoretrdm010:ver1.0:#urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile.eu:biixy:ver1.0#urn:www.difi.no:ehf:faktura:ver1

Credit note: urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biicoretrdm014:ver1.0:#urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:biixy:ver1.0#urn:www.difi.no:ehf:kreditnota:ver1

Reminder: urn:www.cenbii.eu:transaction:biicoretrdm017:ver1.0:#urn:www.cenbii.eu:profile:biixy:ver1.0#urn:www.difi.no:ehf:purring:ver1

Notice how the invoice has ":profile.eu:biixy" but the creditnote and the reminder has ":profile:biixy" iw it is missing the .eu part.

I noticed also that the config for the validator that is used to find out which validations belong to which customixzation also have this inconsistency...

Negative CreditNote

A negative invoice (tilgodefaktura) validates. A negative CreditNote fails (Error: [NONAT-T14-R020]-Tax inclusive amount in a credit note MUST NOT be negative). As long as a negative invoice validates it should be possible to credit the invoice.

Tests failed

When building Vefa Validator App it fails in the testing of the following tests
2.0.2
2.0.4
2.0.5
2.0.6
2.0.9
2.1.0
2.1.1
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
2.1.8
2.1.9
2.2.0

STANDARD config.xml contains incorrect customisation ids

The PEPPOL Customization Identifier identifies the standardised transaction (e.g. BII transaction) and any PEPPOL extension, as it applies to the transaction. The full syntax is: <transactionId>:#<extensionId>[#<extensionId>]

In the config.xml file this is specified as

<transactionId>#<extensionId>[#<extensionId>]

i.e. it is missing the colon before the first hash

Validation fails with your example file

Hi,

Your example file fails with new validator rules:

T14-avrunding-1.xml:
[NOGOV-T14-R005]- The attribute currencyID must have the same value as DocumentCurrencyCode, except the attribute for TransactionCurrencyTaxAmount.

BR,
Jussi

XSD files use absolute path

When including the provided artifacts and referencing the XSD's during validation the validation fails because included XSD's can't be found. This is probably because the XSD's use absolute paths on the form /STANDARD/common/xsd/UBL-2.0/xsd/common/UBL-CommonAggregateComponents-2.0.xsd instead of ./UBL-CommonAggregateComponents-2.0.xsd

Issue: Please replace absolute paths with relative paths.

Add validation (warning) if elements is not part of EHF, but present in UBL

Add a warning if elements sent is not part of the EHF specification, but exists in the UBL schema
Similar change was done in Invoice 2.0.3 revision

Clarify elements that are dependant

Add "D=dependant" to the guide, to clarify if an element is dependant on another element.
Similar change was done in Invoice 2.0.3 revision

Validate (warning) all recommended elements

Add a validation (warning) if recommended elements are missing. Similar change was done in Invoice 2.0.3 revision

Invoice in EUR doesn't validate with new scheme (EHF v2.0.3)

We are having trouble validating invoices in foreign currencies using the new EHF v2.0.3 schema.
We are testing both our own invoices and example invoice from Difi (T10-Valuta-EUR.xml).
Both invoices validates in the old EHF scheme (v2.0.2) without errors.

We are getting this error with the Difi example-file (and our own), validating agains EHF v2.0.3:

Error: [NOGOV-T10-R025]- The attribute currencyID must have the same value as DocumentCurrencyCode, except the attribute for TransactionCurrencyTaxAmount.

I've also tried changing the Difi example-file to only contain currency NOK for TransactionCurrencyTaxAmount, but are still getting the same error.

Is the validation in rule T10-R025 not validationg according to the documentation?

Error validating InvoiceLine/Item/Price/PriceAmount

According to the documentation found here, the InvoiceLine/Item/Price/PriceAmount node is expected to contain net price included discounts and fees, excluding tax, per unit.

So this should work (omitted irrelevant nodes for readability)

<Invoice>  
  <cac:TaxTotal>
    <cbc:TaxAmount currencyID="NOK">250.00</cbc:TaxAmount>
    <cac:TaxSubtotal>
      <cbc:TaxableAmount currencyID="NOK">1000.00</cbc:TaxableAmount>
      <cbc:TaxAmount currencyID="NOK">250.00</cbc:TaxAmount>
      <cac:TaxCategory>
        <cbc:ID schemeID="UN/ECE 5305" schemeAgencyID="6">S</cbc:ID>
        <cbc:Percent>25.00</cbc:Percent>
        <cac:TaxScheme>
          <cbc:ID schemeID="UN/ECE 5305" schemeAgencyID="6">VAT</cbc:ID>
        </cac:TaxScheme>
      </cac:TaxCategory>
    </cac:TaxSubtotal>
  </cac:TaxTotal>
  <cac:LegalMonetaryTotal>
    <cbc:LineExtensionAmount currencyID="NOK">1000.00</cbc:LineExtensionAmount>
    <cbc:TaxExclusiveAmount currencyID="NOK">1000.00</cbc:TaxExclusiveAmount>
    <cbc:TaxInclusiveAmount currencyID="NOK">1250.00</cbc:TaxInclusiveAmount>
    <cbc:PayableAmount currencyID="NOK">1250.00</cbc:PayableAmount>
  </cac:LegalMonetaryTotal>
  <cac:InvoiceLine>
    <cbc:LineExtensionAmount currencyID="NOK">1000.00</cbc:LineExtensionAmount>
    <cac:Item>
      <cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory>
        <cbc:ID schemeID="UN/ECE 5305" schemeAgencyID="6">S</cbc:ID>
        <cbc:Percent>25</cbc:Percent>
        <cac:TaxScheme>
          <cbc:ID schemeID="UN/ECE 5153" schemeAgencyID="6">VAT</cbc:ID>
        </cac:TaxScheme>
      </cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory>
    </cac:Item>
    <cac:Price>
      <cbc:PriceAmount currencyID="NOK">500.0000</cbc:PriceAmount>
      <cbc:BaseQuantity unitCode="NMP">2.0000</cbc:BaseQuantity>
    </cac:Price>
  </cac:InvoiceLine>
</Invoice>

But this fails with the following error: [BIIRULE-T10-R018]-Invoice line amount MUST be equal to the price amount multiplied by the quantity plus charges minus allowances at line level

I have to change the PriceAmount to be equal to (unit price x units) like this:

<cac:Price>
  <cbc:PriceAmount currencyID="NOK">100.0000</cbc:PriceAmount>
  <cbc:BaseQuantity unitCode="NMP">2.0000</cbc:BaseQuantity>
</cac:Price>

According to the documentation this is wrong, so what should I do ?

anskaffelser / ehf-postaward-g2 Goto Github PK

ehf-postaward-g2's People

Contributors

Stargazers

Watchers

Forkers

ehf-postaward-g2's Issues

!/bin/sh

Recommend Projects

Recommend Topics

Recommend Org