Generated ZUGFeRD2.0 file contradicts Mustang validator

[relhussein]

I'm using the Mustang framework to generate ZUGFeRD files for version 2 / profile EN16931.
The Mustang validator shows 3 issues:

1. Creditor Identifier
Message: [BR-DE-30] Wenn "DIRECT DEBIT" BG-19 vorhanden ist, dann muss "Bank assigned creditor identifier" BT-90 übermittelt werden. [ID BR-DE-30] from /xslt/XR_30/XRechnung-CII-validation.xslt)

Solution:
I think this will be solved in near future -> #436

2.Das Element "Specification identifier" (BT-24) soll syntaktisch der Kennung des Standards XRechnung entsprechen.
Message:
[BR-DE-21] Das Element "Specification identifier" (BT-24) soll syntaktisch der Kennung des Standards XRechnung entsprechen. [ID BR-DE-21] from /xslt/XR_30/XRechnung-CII-validation.xslt)

Solution;
I think this issue relates to this -> #172
Will there be a fix?

3. Business process MUST be provided
Message: notice type="27" location="/rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice/rsm:ExchangedDocumentContext[1]" criterion="ram:BusinessProcessSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter/ram:ID">Business process MUST be provided. [ID PEPPOL-EN16931-R001] from /xslt/XR_30/XRechnung-CII-validation.xslt)

To solve this, I think

         <ram:GuidelineSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter>
		      <ram:ID>urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017</ram:ID>
	        </ram:GuidelineSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter>

should be 

<ram:BusinessProcessSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter>
		<ram:ID>urn:fdc:peppol.eu:2017:poacc:billing:01:1.0</ram:ID>
	</ram:BusinessProcessSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter>

[jstaerk]

hi, could you please attach the whole sample (and maybe even the source?) so that to make the issues reproducible?

[relhussein]

Hi jstaerk, here is the output of the validator:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<validation filename="ZF_generated.pdf" datetime="2024-08-21 09:34:22">
  <pdf>ValidationResult [flavour=3u, totalAssertions=11286, assertions=[], isCompliant=true]
    <info>
      <signature>Mustang</signature>
      <duration unit="ms">1539</duration>
    </info>
    <summary status="valid"/>
  </pdf>  
  <xml>
    <info>
      <version>2</version>
      <profile>urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017</profile>
      <validator version="2.12.0"/>
      <rules>
        <fired>16</fired>
        <failed>3</failed>
      </rules>
      <duration unit="ms">3180</duration>
    </info>
    <messages>
      <notice type="27" location="/rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice/rsm:ExchangedDocumentContext[1]" criterion="ram:BusinessProcessSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter/ram:ID">Business process MUST be provided. [ID PEPPOL-EN16931-R001] from /xslt/XR_30/XRechnung-CII-validation.xslt)</notice>  
      <notice type="27" location="/rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice" criterion="(($BT-89-path or $BT-91-path) and $BT-90-path) or $BG-19-not-existing">[BR-DE-30] Wenn "DIRECT DEBIT" BG-19 vorhanden ist, dann muss "Bank assigned creditor identifier" BT-90 übermittelt werden. [ID BR-DE-30] from /xslt/XR_30/XRechnung-CII-validation.xslt)</notice>  
      <notice type="27" location="/rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice/rsm:ExchangedDocumentContext[1]" criterion="ram:GuidelineSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter/ram:ID = $XR-CIUS-ID or ram:GuidelineSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter/ram:ID = $XR-EXTENSION-ID">[BR-DE-21] Das Element "Specification identifier" (BT-24) soll syntaktisch der Kennung des Standards XRechnung entsprechen. [ID BR-DE-21] from /xslt/XR_30/XRechnung-CII-validation.xslt)</notice> 
    </messages>
    <summary status="valid"/>
  </xml>
  <messages></messages>
  <summary status="valid"/>
</validation>

And please find attached the pdf that generates these issues. Hope it helps & thank you.

ZF.pdf

[jstaerk]

Hello,

it seems as what you describe are mere notices, if you run with --no-notices they will disappear. The idea was that if you feed a EN16931 the software checks if it's by any chance also a valid XRechnung and if not, gives the user a hint a lá "and if you also specify XYZ" you would also get a XRechnung.

kind regards
JOchen