search

svanteschubert / complex-business-cases

The complex business cases collected by French and German businesses.
Apache License 2.0
6 stars 0 forks source link

Extension in CII (implementation) #10

Open svanteschubert opened 1 year ago

svanteschubert commented 1 year ago

Further Procedure

Possible solution difficult. CEN validation rules validate over all invoice items and do not differentiate whether an element (ParentID) represents this item as a sub-item. This inevitably leads to an error in the validation. Can neither be adapted by KoSIT nor FeRD, changes only possible via CEN committees.

Update: To-Do still open

edmundgray commented 1 year ago

need more information on the issue - is it sub line items?

larsroelkerdenker commented 1 year ago

need more information on the issue - is it sub line items?

yes, it is about sub invoice lines. It works for Extension XRechnung in UBL but not for CII

svanteschubert commented 11 months ago

There is a bit of confusion in the CEN TC 434 on breaking the validation rules from the core with an extension. If there is only a subset of XML available for a business rule in the core of course it will fail in an extension!

For example, we have in one of the XML formats 6 attributes A to F, all containing some number. The first 5 XML attributes: A, B, C, D, and E are being added up to the attribute F (like full). Therefore the schematron validation rule is that A+B+C+D+E = F

But let's assume we just required in the B2G core the attributes A, B and C and the result F. Therefore, the validation rule for the core would be A+B+C = F (as the attributes D and E are not allowed).

With an extension, we decided now to bring back the attribute E! Therefore, the validation rule for the extension would be A+B+C+E = F (as the attribute D is still not allowed).

In any document which contains an E that is unequal to 0 the core rule will fail, which is completely correct. We should keep this in mind!

PS: @larsroelkerdenker it is possible to provide a validation rule for the CII sub-invoice line extensions as Andreas Pelekies confirmed as well. Therefore, I will mark this issue as out-of-scope. Please close if clarified otherwise please ask if you have any further questions!