Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Partner syntax merge override does not work #69

Open
bf-ckiendl opened this issue Oct 30, 2019 · 0 comments
Open

Partner syntax merge override does not work #69

bf-ckiendl opened this issue Oct 30, 2019 · 0 comments

Comments

@bf-ckiendl
Copy link

I have partner syntax overrides for both the frompartner and the topartner. Both clearly declare merge to be false.
I have made sure the files are read by deliberately causing errors which then appear during the parsing run. (e.g. setting the EDI version to a value too large.)
So I have a proper partner syntax override, which I know is being read, which clearly states messages should not be merged, yet outbound EDIFACT-data still gets merged into a single file, and I can see that inn.ta_info['merge'] is still true as well as ta.merge in the database.

I've tried figuring out where the problem starts, but the code is rather convoluted.

I tried fixing it by manually setting merge to False in the mapping script, and I can see the effect on messages in the database, but the parent node (messagetype=edifact rather than INVOIC...) still registers with merge=1 and the messages still get merged.

Considering that partner-dependent non-merging of EDIFACT files is the specific example used for partner-specific syntax overrides, this is clearly a bug.

The documentation regarding EDI-splitting is useless, because it's working off the opposite premise:

Think of eg splitting up a shipment to the different orders. There are 2 ways of doing this:
Write multiple message to the same file .
Write each generated message to the same file, using alt translations.

...writing everything to the same file is the opposite of splitting them up.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant