attestwireAttestwire › Rule reference › PEPPOL-EN16931-CL008
PEPPOL-EN16931-CL008 An electronic address scheme must be on Peppol’s scheme list
noun · Peppol BIS · fatal · BT-34
For a sample invoice, the library reports: The Seller electronic address (BT-34) uses the scheme identifier "EM", which is not in the Peppol Participant Identifier Scheme list.
- Business term
BT-34- Severity
fatal
The fix
Set seller.electronicAddress.schemeId to a code from the PEPPOL_EAS_SCHEME_CODES list this package exports — 0002, 0007, 0009, 0037, 0060, 0088 and 88 others. In practice the choice is made for you: it is whichever scheme your counterparty is registered under in the Peppol directory, so look them up rather than guessing.
A passing value
"electronicAddress": { "schemeId": "0088", "value": "7300010000001" }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": "PEPPOL-EN16931-CL008",
"field": "BT-34",
"severity": "fatal",
"message": "The Seller electronic address (BT-34) uses the scheme identifier \"EM\", which is not in the Peppol Participant Identifier Scheme list. This is the rule people are most surprised by, because \"EM\" may well be a perfectly valid CEF Electronic Address Scheme code and satisfy BR-CL-25: the CEN list is the *register* of address schemes, and this one is the subset an access point will actually resolve. A code in the first and not the second gives you a document that passes every validator you can run locally and is refused at the network edge. This is a Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 profile rule: it applies because profile is \"peppol-bis-3\". It does not apply to the en16931, xrechnung-ubl or xrechnung-cii profiles, whose validators will accept the same document.",
"fix": "Set seller.electronicAddress.schemeId to a code from the PEPPOL_EAS_SCHEME_CODES list this package exports — 0002, 0007, 0009, 0037, 0060, 0088 and 88 others. In practice the choice is made for you: it is whichever scheme your counterparty is registered under in the Peppol directory, so look them up rather than guessing.",
"example": "\"electronicAddress\": { \"schemeId\": \"0088\", \"value\": \"7300010000001\" }",
"xpath": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cbc:EndpointID",
"docsUrl": "https://attestwire.com/rules/PEPPOL-EN16931-CL008"
}
xpath is always a UBL path. On a CII invoice, look for the
matching CII field instead.