| Title: | DEC/EDI |
| Notice: | DEC/EDI V2.1 - see note 2002 |
| Moderator: | METSYS::BABER |
| Created: | Wed Jun 06 1990 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 3150 |
| Total number of notes: | 13466 |
Hi,
My customer has two EDI systems, an old 1.3 VMS/VAX system and an ALPHA
based 2.1c system. He migrates the same message from the 1.3 system to
the 2.1 system, but found that he had to change his filebridge table to
get it to work. On the 1.3 system, when processing the message, the
filebridge table did not take into account the fact that there is a UNS
segment between HDR, DET and SUM. On the 2.1 system he has to
explicitly include the UNS segments into the filebridge table otherwise
processing fails. Is there a change in the behavior of filebridge in
this regard between 1.3 and 2.1?
The other thing we have encountered is that since upgrading their
messages, edifact documents that used to be called EDIFACT-REMADV are
now appearing as REMADV. To prevent them having to change their
profiles I made a copy of REMADV to EDIFACT-REMADV. Could this be the
cause of the above filebridge problem?
Peter
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3141.1 | Changed problem description | JOBURG::BERETTA | Wed May 28 1997 14:56 | 35 | |
I have just discussed this problem with the customer again and it
appears that his original description of the problem as detailed in .0 is
not correct. I will try to clarify:
He has created a new edifact message in version 921 and called it
acinfo. It looks like this:
0001 BGM 00000001 H M 00000000
0002 FTX 00000001 H O 00000000
0003 UNS 00000001 H M 00000000
0004 RFF 00000001 D M 0101 00009999 O
0005 FTX 00000001 D O 0101 00000000
0006 UNS 00000001 S M 00000000
0007 CNT 00000001 S M 00000000
He had originally not included the UNS segments, but EDI was failing
the message. When he added the UNS segments as above, processing
succeeded. On his 1.3 system his acinfo document looks like this:
0001 BGM 00000001 H M 00000000
0002 RFF 00009999 D O 00000000
0003 CNT 00000001 S M 00000000
and it works.
He was wondering if after having loaded the new messages and the
documents names changed as detailed in .0, whether this had changed
something, and whether decedi processed differently between 1.3 and
2.1. He had originally told me it was his filebridge table that he had
edited, this is however not the case.
(I will screen the next problem more carefully - sorry for the
confusion)
Peter.
| |||||
| 3141.2 | We had to change to keep abreast | SYSTEM::HELLIAR | http://samedi.reo.dec.com/ | Thu May 29 1997 11:19 | 7 |
Peter,
EDIFACT's usage of UNS changed and to cater for all cases we had to add
explixit UNS's in the document definitions in V2.0 (before that we
ALWATS assumed UNS's between non-empty areas).
Graham
| |||||
| 3141.3 | Thanks | JOBURG::BERETTA | Thu May 29 1997 15:05 | 5 | |
Thanks Graham,
That explains the problem.
Peter.
| |||||