attestwireAttestwire › Rule reference › BR-CL-25
BR-CL-25 An electronic address scheme must be a CEF EAS code
noun · EN 16931 · fatal · BT-34
For a sample invoice, the library reports: The scheme identifier on the seller electronic address (BT-34) is "0003", which is not in the CEF Electronic Address Scheme (EAS) list.
- Business term
BT-34- Severity
fatal
The fix
Set seller.electronicAddress.schemeId to an EAS code: "0204" German Leitweg-ID, "9930" German VAT identifier, "0088" GLN, "0192" Norwegian organisation number, "0106" Dutch KvK/OIN, "EM" email address.
A passing value
"electronicAddress": { "schemeId": "0204", "value": "04011000-1234512345-06" }What the library returns
The full error returned by @attestwire/en16931. It includes the rule ID,
affected field and suggested correction. Developers can use this object in their application:
{
"rule": "BR-CL-25",
"field": "BT-34",
"severity": "fatal",
"message": "The scheme identifier on the seller electronic address (BT-34) is \"0003\", which is not in the CEF Electronic Address Scheme (EAS) list. EAS is a narrower list than the ISO 6523 ICD list used for party identifiers, so a code that is valid as a party scheme can still be invalid here — the access point routes on this pair, and a scheme it does not know is an undeliverable address.",
"fix": "Set seller.electronicAddress.schemeId to an EAS code: \"0204\" German Leitweg-ID, \"9930\" German VAT identifier, \"0088\" GLN, \"0192\" Norwegian organisation number, \"0106\" Dutch KvK/OIN, \"EM\" email address.",
"example": "\"electronicAddress\": { \"schemeId\": \"0204\", \"value\": \"04011000-1234512345-06\" }",
"xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cbc:EndpointID/@schemeID",
"docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-CL-25"
}
xpath is always a UBL path. On a CII invoice, look for the
matching CII field instead.