Order Import Fails For EDI 850 POI With Cannot Get Valid Id For Ship_to_org_id
(Doc ID 756647.1)
Last updated on MAY 22, 2019
Applies to:Oracle EDI Gateway - Version 18.104.22.168 to 22.214.171.124 [Release 11.5.10]
Information in this document applies to any platform.
***Checked for relevance on 13-JAN-2015***
The e-Commerce gateway import program for e-Commerce Gateway (EDI) 850 Purchase Order Inbound (POI) places data into the order interface tables, but the order is in error with the message:
The problem seems to be that the address associated with the EDI location code does not match that set in the import flat file.
ECE_POI_ADDRESS_PRECEDENCE=LOC for inbound 850.
The only difference is that the address in oracle has address line 4, the import flat file does not.
The following flat file data causes the failure:
1500 30 60 196 Ship_To_Address_Name
1500 40 35 256 Ship_To_Address1 Company Name. INC.
1500 50 35 291 Ship_To_Address2 123 NORTH
1500 60 35 326 Ship_To_Address3 P. O. BOX 547
1500 70 35 361 Ship_To_Address4
1500 80 30 396 Ship_To_City CLINTON
1500 90 15 426 Ship_To_Postal_Code 73601
1500 100 20 441 Ship_To_Country_INT US
1500 110 3 461 Ship_To_Country_Ext1 US
1500 120 20 464 Ship_To_State_INT OK
1500 130 10 484 Ship_To_State_Ext1 OK
If I populate Ship_To_Address4 then the order passes through order import without error.
It seems to me that the import program should not pass this order with a mismatched ship_to address into the order interface tables.
The correct behaviour should be to place the order in the staged documents folder of e-commerce gateway responsibility.
We are using both ship_to location components, location code and address, in order to catch changes in the ship to address at our trading partner.
We have set up the address in OM for the location code, but we also want to detect if the address for that location code changes.
The location code corresponds to a dealer code at our trading partner, and the actual dealer ship_to address can change, order to order.
Because we submit both location code and address we are relying on the following behavior, as described in the ECG user guide to detect a mismatch between our address in OM and that currently defined for our trading partner's dealer:
LOC (Default)- Address components and/or location code combination
The address is derived from the combination of location code and address components.
If there is only one value provided, either location code or address components, the address will be derived based on the provided value.
If both location code and address components are provided, then it will be based on the combination of both.
Note: If no address is found for both location code and address components or if the populated address components and location code do not match, then a message ’Unable to derive ship to address’ will appear.
If both location code and physical address are provided, then it will derive address through location code and compare it with that derived through physical address.
So, if the dealer ship_to address changes, normally the order will fail to process through ECG, being held up in the Staged documents area with a 'unable to derive address' error.
When this occurs, we update the ship_to address in OM for the location code to match that in ECG and resubmit the order.
In the case I describe, this does not occur, as it seems that address line 4 is not included in the requirement for a matching address. This seems inconsistent to me.
To view full details, sign in with your My Oracle Support account.
Don't have a My Oracle Support account? Click to get started!
In this Document