Broken matching in multiple scenario files

[Lorenzschaef]

In theory, all the latest releases of the xrechnung validator-configuration (https://github.com/itplr-kosit/validator-configuration-xrechnung) have a scenario for validating EN16931 (CII) without the XRechnung rules. The match-tag of the scenario is as follows:

    <match>exists(/rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice[ rsm:ExchangedDocumentContext/ram:GuidelineSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter/ram:ID/text() = 'urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017'])</match>

If I use any of these scenario files alone, I can validate my file, which starts like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice xmlns:rsm="urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:CrossIndustryInvoice:100" xmlns:qdt="urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:QualifiedDataType:100" xmlns:ram="urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:ReusableAggregateBusinessInformationEntity:100" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:udt="urn:un:unece:uncefact:data:standard:UnqualifiedDataType:100">
  <rsm:ExchangedDocumentContext>
    <ram:GuidelineSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter>
      <ram:ID>urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017</ram:ID>
...

However, if I load more than one scenario file, which all contain this same scenario, the validator says there is no matching scenario.

On the other hand, I am perfectly able to validate different versions of XRechnung through the same validator instance. So the problem seems to be, that more than one scenario matches!?

I would expect the validator to execute the first matching scenario.

[wurst-hans]

I'm using multiple scenarios too and have commented out the common EN16931 rules (except the specific ones for XRechnung) in all other scenario files except the current 3.0.2. So EN16931 gets validated via latest 3.0.2 configuration only.

[karladler]

any update here?

[phax]

We acknowledge the issue and recommend the following activities:

1. Change the error message in the report to "More then one scenario was found" instead of "No scenario was found"
2. Internally consider separating the general EU rules into their own scenario XML file, similar to how the Peppol BIS Billing scenario file is maintained in a different repository. This is a general design decision when designing validation configurations.

[rkottmann]

A workaround until v2 of validator could be to take out all EN16931 general scenarios. They cause the issue.

[phax]

This is something we will consider for the 2.0.0 release where we want to rework the scenario definitions. One of those reworks will be to make sure, that duplicate scenarios are handled properly.

[Thiibeau]

@rkottmann Is there a working scnerarios.xml somewhere? Workaround doesn't seem to fix the issue.

[rkottmann]

@rkottmann Is there a working scnerarios.xml somewhere? Workaround doesn't seem to fix the issue.

I do not have an own scenario. Can u give me access to your workaround?

[Thiibeau]

@rkottmann scenarios.xml

I look at the official website and removed all scenarios that were not listed in here:

That does not seem to fix the issue sadly

[phax]

The basic problem is, if multiple scenario XMLs use the same match expressions. For XRechnung each release gets its own version number with a change to the customization ID. However the Customization ID of the EN is always the same, so there is no way to choose specific validation rules solely based on this element.
Example problematic match:

<match>
exists(/rsm:CrossIndustryInvoice[ rsm:ExchangedDocumentContext/ram:GuidelineSpecifiedDocumentContextParameter/ram:ID/text() = 'urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017'])
</match>

So if you extract the "pure EN" matches into a single scenario and include it only once (e.g. with the latest validation rules release) the problem should be minimized