Validating UNB and UNH segment in EDIFACT using Seeburger BIC

[Former Member]

Hi Experts,

Just a small thing if someone can help with. What's happening is if an interchange comes with wrong interchange number in UNB vs UNZ segment BIC is actually rectifying that automatically and it makes the UNZ same as UNB. However I don't want BIC to do this.

Any suggestions on how can i stop this from happening please?

regards

[Former Member]

Custom coding is required to handle this.

[Former Member]

Hello people,

is there any solution to the above?

regards

[Former Member]

Hi Guys,

Troubling once again, can anyone please shed any light on the above.

regards

[Former Member]

You would change the behaviour in the Seeburger mappings, as described in above posts. In XI you cannnot do anything, becuause it's too late.

But be careful with changes there

[Former Member]

Hi Everyone,

Thankyou for the valueable input.

The requirement I meant to fulfil is if the UNB doesn't match UNZ I am meant to fail the mapping. But currently because it auto-corrects and let it pass it is not achieveable becasue MM is completely blind to the fact that there was an issue.

Any suggestions on how to handle this?

I can see an option where (UNB, UNH, CNT) are mentioned and processing mode to failure (is OFF) I believe if I turn it ON and BIC see's a difference it would fail it at adapter level?

regards

[Former Member]

Hi Everyone,

Further to Above I have noticed 3 things:

1) UNT:

if UNI has wrong number of count in it, a control will be generated with Rejection and Message Mapping will not be executed. (Good)

2) UNH & UNT:

If the value of UNH is different to UNT (Unique Message Number) it is not auto-correcting (Good)

3) UNB & UNZ:

If UNB & UNZ have different value (for the interchange Number), if you try this in BIC designer then it doesn't actually autocorrect it, however if you deploy the same mapping in PI and then do it, it actually auto-corrects (Strange)

So the only real issue is this number 3. But now i have a question if anyone knows is there any kind of validation done on the VAN itself. Cause when i see this behaviour it is telling me that its' in there for a reason.??????

[Former Member]

AFAIK, if there is difference in both then BIC will throw an error...

why cannot you give a check in BIC mapping designer tool itself...

HTH

Rajesh

[Former Member]

Hi Prateek,

Thank you for a quick help I will try that in the morning and I am positive that should settle it.

Hi Rajesh,

That was my understanding too. However for UNH segment the trailer is UNT so if UNH had 100 and UNT had 101 BIC is not throwing an error but it is not correcting it either. But I think I can handle it in messag mapping and itsn't a big deal I was meant to do that anyway.

However for UNB the trailer is UNZ and if I had UNB = 500 and UNZ = 499 BIC will automatically correct and I am positive the reason for that is what Prateek mentioned. And hence by the time I get it in Integration Engine I have no way of knowing it was incorrect. This odd behaviour it is almost like it is set to auto correct.

For UNT it is not doing the right thing either, e.g. if I had UNT = 36 but the real count should have been 38 it will actually autocorrect it to 38 and actually let it pass to message mapping, however the Control it is generating it is rejecting the message based on UNT was not correct.

But for the first two it even creates a control with status 'accepted'.

Thank you guys I will close the thread in the morning if things are working

regards

[prateek]

Can you check again if this UNZ value is same as UNH and not UNB (may be they hold same value)? Also is UNZ 0036 the field you are worried about?

Goto BIC MD, open the message for which you need to perform this change. Go to the required field in the heirarchy. There on the right side, you would be able to see all properties of the field. Goto the column named "Counted record". For UNZ 0036 (or field of your choice), you will see value as "UNH". Remove the value and keep it empty. Reuse this structure to create the mapping and redeploy. It should work then.

Regards,

Prateek

[Former Member]

Hi,

just one thing you should consider: If you remove the "Counted Record" value from the UNZ and then use this structure also for outbound messages, you might run into a problem. If you use the modified structure for outbound messages you might have to fill the UNZ field in your mapping code. Since it is automatically filled with the "Counted Record" by default, but you removed this, the field will be empty in an outbound mapping XML to Edifact.

regards,

Daniel