BR-CO-24 The reason (BT-144) and the reason code (BT-145) on the invoice line charge at lines[0].charges[0] are individually optional terms, and this constraint — separate from BR-44, which is the cardinality rule on the group — is what rules out the one combination those cardinalities would otherwise permit: neither present
The reason (BT-144) and the reason code (BT-145) on the invoice line charge at lines[0].charges[0] are individually optional terms, and this constraint — separate from BR-44, which is the cardinality rule on the group — is what rules out the one combination those cardinalities would otherwise permit: neither present. Supplying both is allowed and preferable, because the code is machine-actionable and the text is what a person reads.
This rule is implemented and its error payload below is real, but the long-form write-up — normative text, worked example, divergence note — is not written yet. Everything the library knows about this rule is on this page. Ask and we will prioritise it.
- Business term
BT-144 / BT-145- Severity
fatal
What the library returns
The exact object in result.errors when this rule fires.
Generated by running @attestwire/en16931, not transcribed:
{
"rule": "BR-CO-24",
"field": [
"BT-144",
"BT-145"
],
"severity": "fatal",
"message": "The reason (BT-144) and the reason code (BT-145) on the invoice line charge at lines[0].charges[0] are individually optional terms, and this constraint — separate from BR-44, which is the cardinality rule on the group — is what rules out the one combination those cardinalities would otherwise permit: neither present. Supplying both is allowed and preferable, because the code is machine-actionable and the text is what a person reads.",
"fix": "Add lines[0].charges[0].reason, lines[0].charges[0].reasonCode, or both. Where no UNCL 7161 code describes what you are charging for, omit the code entirely and use free text — the lists have no \"other\" entry, and an invented code fails BR-CL-20.",
"example": "\"reason\": \"Handling\", \"reasonCode\": \"SH\"",
"xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:InvoiceLine[1]/cac:AllowanceCharge[2]/cbc:AllowanceChargeReasonCode",
"docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/BR-CO-24"
}
xpath locates the element in the generated UBL document,
which is where a KoSIT or Peppol validator will report the same problem.
A passing value
"reason": "Handling", "reasonCode": "SH"The fix
Add lines[0].charges[0].reason, lines[0].charges[0].reasonCode, or both. Where no UNCL 7161 code describes what you are charging for, omit the code entirely and use free text — the lists have no "other" entry, and an invented code fails BR-CL-20.