search

itplr-kosit / validator-configuration-xrechnung

Configuration for validating documents against the German XRechnung standard using the KoSIT validation tool
https://xeinkauf.de/xrechnung/
Apache License 2.0
64 stars 17 forks source link

Validation error on Typecode 875/877 with XRechnung Version 2.0 #57

Closed s137 closed 2 years ago

s137 commented 3 years ago

With your "Validator Configuration release compatible with XRechnung 2.0.0 in version 2020-07-31" I get an error stating that the Typecode is not coded according to the codelist and the validator suggests rejection of the invoice, which should be a correct CII XRechnung 2.0 with the typecode 875 from the official referenced codelist UNTDID 1001_2.

I haven't changed any configuration, i just downloaded the Validator and the Validator Config for version 2.0.0 (as mentioned above) as instructed in your wiki.

With 2.0.1 it is merely a warning, but it still suggests to the invoice recipient that there is some kind of error even if it is accepted. But as I see it, the official valid codelist since v1.2.2 should be Revision 2 of UNTDID 1001. Unfortunately many of our customers get their invoices rejected because they have to use these typecodes, considering they work in the construction industry and it is required by law.

XRechnung.zip

GOSTWorker commented 3 years ago

For me, too, this behavior represents an annoying weakness in this validation tool.

phax commented 3 years ago

XRechnung code lists rely on the code lists of EN16931, which are in turn subsets of the UNTDID lists. So for XRechnung to be a CIUS (total subset) of the norm, it cannot accept codes that are not accepted by the EN.

The difference to 2.0.1 is, that this is an "Extension" (a super set, contrary to a CIUS) and as such it can extend code lists.

GOSTWorker commented 3 years ago

I do not understand why this list is not compliant with EN16931: urn:xoev-de:kosit:codeliste:untdid.1001_2 https://www.xrepository.de/details/urn:xoev-de:kosit:codeliste:untdid.1001_2#version https://service.unece.org/trade/untdid/d19b/tred/tred1001.htm

phax commented 3 years ago

Because the EN16931 took a subset. The code list you are referring to contains "Document types" EN16931 selected the ones the can be interpreted as either "Invoice" or "CreditNote". And it seems like nobody requested those specific codes to be added at the time of creation.

rkottmann commented 2 years ago

This should be solved by now. Casue codes are available now.

phax commented 2 years ago

This was added in the CEN release 1.3.8 via https://github.com/ConnectingEurope/eInvoicing-EN16931/issues/309