[Evergreen-acq] Moving to EDI Attributes - Question/Concern

Tue Jul 23 08:33:29 EDT 2019

John,

Can you confirm that your example B&T account has INCLUDE_EMPTY_LI_NOTE
set?  From my reading of the EDIWriter.pm code, if that's set, it should
work as the action/trigger version does.

Hope that helps!

Chris

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:11 AM John Amundson <jamundson at cwmars.org> wrote:

> Thank you for the reply, Tiffany.
>
> In my testing, the UPC was still attached to the PIA+5 segment in the old
> version, so perhaps the new one is smarter and doesn't append it unless
> it's present. In any case, it doesn't seem to be something to worry about
> because my Midwest Tape setup is similar to yours.
>
> At least at first I think we will continue sending the GIR segments to
> B&T. I don't want to rock the boat too much with some of our vendors, so
> I'll plan to make changes only if needed.
>
> Querying our edi_message table, I find when this segment is included in
> our ORDERS messages, only FTX+LIN+1 is sent. Although I did not verify
> 100%, this seems to only be for B&T orders. It is not present for other
> vendors.
>
> I do see more interesting segments in our responses, though, (ORDRSP
> message type):
> FTX+LIN++05:8B:28
> FTX+LIN++400:1B:28
> etc.
>
> We get these back from multiple vendors, not just B&T
>
> For reference, here is a comparison of the line item portion of an ORDERS
> message to B&T before and after moving to attributes:
>
> *Before:*
> 'LIN+752234++9781524702946:EN
> 'PIA+5+9781524702946:EN
> 'IMD+F+BTI+:::Odessa Sea
> 'IMD+F+BPU+:::Penguin Audiobooks
> 'IMD+F+BPD+:::20161115
> 'IMD+F+BPH
> 'QTY+21:1
> *[GIR Segment]*
> 'FTX+LIN+1
> 'PRI+AAB:45
> 'RFF+LI:28047/752234
>
> *After:*
> 'LIN+752249++9781524702946:EN
> 'PIA+5+9781524702946:EN
> 'IMD+F+BTI+:::Odessa Sea
> 'IMD+F+BPU+:::Penguin Audiobooks
> 'IMD+F+BPD+:::20161115
> 'IMD+F+BPH
> 'QTY+21:1
> *[GIR Segment]*
> 'PRI+AAB:45.00
> 'RFF+LI:28052/752249
>
> If you were sending order successfully prior to and after the change
> without this segment, perhaps the segment is not needed.
>
> And finally, *we do have several B&T accounts that do not have a suffix
> listed*. Are you saying that prior to the change to attributes, the
> responses were landing on the correct account but not after? We haven't had
> issues with this happening on the old system.
>
> Thank you,
> John
>
>
>
> <http://www.cwmars.org>
>
> John Amundson | Library Applications Supervisor | CW MARS
>
> jamundson at cwmars.org | 508-755-3323 x322 <%28508%29%20755-3323>
>
> https://www.cwmars.org
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1:49 PM Tiffany Little <
> tlittle at georgialibraries.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> We've completely moved over to EDI Attributes, so I'll add my $0.02.
>>
>> Your testing method is pretty much exactly what I did, by the way. If you
>> can run scripts or have someone willing to do it for you, you can also run
>> edi_order_pusher.pl in testmode and it will just print what the EDI
>> output would be without sending it anywhere.
>>
>> For Midwest Tape, I've attached a screenshot of how I have our EDI
>> Attribute set up. With this setup, the UPC is being sent in the PIA+5
>> segment which is for Product ID. I never heard a peep from Midwest when we
>> did the changeover and they've kept sending everything accurately, so I'm
>> guessing this is fine. My libraries don't get cataloging done from them,
>> though, so YMMV.
>>
>> For Baker & Taylor, they're slightly different. I went off script and set
>> up my own EDI Attribute for Baker & Taylor. I don't have any libraries
>> getting vendor cataloging done from B&T so I labeled it as non-enriched
>> accounts, since that's what B&T calls it. So for this profile we're not
>> sending them funds, barcodes, etc. in the GIR segments.
>>
>> Now I did have a problem with this one, and I found a workaround because
>> I didn't feel like delving that deep in at the time to figure out why it
>> was happening. If you have multiple B&T accounts where some have a suffix
>> and one doesn't (this is B&T's common practice, that your main account
>> doesn't have one but subsequent accounts do) then when the order
>> acknowledgements/invoices would come in they would attach to the wrong B&T
>> EDI account. My hack was basically just to ask B&T's EDI specialists to
>> give that main account a suffix, which apparently has no effect at all on
>> them and they were happy to do. So if all B&T accounts for that library
>> have a suffix, I haven't had any other issues with that at all.
>>
>> I've also started attempting to map EDI segments to the specific settings
>> in EDI Attributes here:
>> https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=acq:edi_fields
>>
>> With our B&T setup, we do send LIN with every title; that corresponds to
>> Acq's line item ID. We don't personally send FTX values; I *think* that
>> might just be for line item notes? Please don't quote me on that, though. I
>> looked both here:
>> https://service.unece.org/trade/untdid/d01b/trmd/orders_c.htm#0070_X and
>> through EDIWriter.pm for what FTX values are, and the EDIWriter references
>> FTX when talking about line item notes. If you look through your old ORDERS
>> messages and have FTX values, I'd be interested in what they are.
>>
>> Tiffany Little, PINES Services Specialist: Acquisitions
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Georgia Public Library Service | University System of Georgia
>>
>> 1800 Century Place NE Suite 580 l Atlanta, GA 30345
>>
>> (470) 512-1454 | tlittle at georgialibraries.org |
>> help at help.georgialibraries.org
>>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/georgialibraries>
>> <https://www.twitter.com/georgialibs>
>>
>> Join our email list <http://georgialibraries.org> for stories of Georgia
>> libraries making an impact in our communities.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:57 PM John Amundson <jamundson at cwmars.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, Acquisitions community!
>>>
>>> I know there's a brave soul or two out there who has switched to using
>>> the new EDI attributes.
>>>
>>> I'm currently testing the attributes for our network, and I've run into
>>> two issues that may be of concern. My questions are *bolded *below.
>>>
>>> Before I get into that, some background. I'll share my testing process,
>>> (maybe it will help others thinking about moving over - but be warned, we
>>> haven't added attributes to our production environment, yet, so I cannot
>>> vouch for how successful this method is).
>>>
>>> Using the Action Trigger PO JEDI template for reference, I updated the
>>> EDI Attribute sets for the vendors we use to resemble the data included in
>>> the template as closely as possible.
>>>
>>> Our libraries use three vendors: Ingram, Baker & Taylor, and Midwest
>>> Tape.
>>>
>>> To test I created dummy accounts that will create EDI messages but not
>>> send them, (nonexistent host). I then compared the output with the EDI
>>> output from another PO that used the same vendor and line items but wasn't
>>> using attributes. I would then adjust the attribute set again and activate
>>> another PO until I got messages that resembled each other.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ingram's conversion was visually identical.
>>>
>>> Midwest Tape was almost identical. For MW Tape, the old template
>>> included UPC, but this is not an option with the new attributes. In looking
>>> at old messages, it seems this usually resulted in a hanging UP at the end
>>> of the ISBN anyway, so I don't know how much this is needed. *Anyone
>>> using Midwest Tape with EDI Attributes have any trouble by not sending the
>>> UPC?*
>>>
>>> Baker & Taylor's discrepancy may be a bigger issue. The old template
>>> added the following information to each line item:
>>> FTX+LIN+1
>>> This is not present when using the Attribute set, nor is it an available
>>> choice to add.
>>> There is a comment in the PO JEDI template that says
>>> "BT & ULS want FTX+LIN for every LI, even if empty".
>>> *Anyone using Baker & Taylor with EDI Attributes run into any issues
>>> with B&T not accepting orders without the FTX+LIN+1 affixed to each line
>>> item?*
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> John
>>> <http://www.cwmars.org>
>>>
>>> John Amundson | Library Applications Supervisor | CW MARS
>>>
>>> jamundson at cwmars.org | 508-755-3323 x322 <%28508%29%20755-3323>
>>>
>>> https://www.cwmars.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Evergreen-acq mailing list
>>> Evergreen-acq at list.evergreen-ils.org
>>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-acq
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Evergreen-acq mailing list
>> Evergreen-acq at list.evergreen-ils.org
>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-acq
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Evergreen-acq mailing list
> Evergreen-acq at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/evergreen-acq
>

-- 

Chris Sharp, PINES System Administrator
------------------------------

Georgia Public Library Service

1800 Century Place NE Suite 580 l Atlanta, GA 30345

(404) 235-7147 | csharp at georgialibraries.org

<https://www.facebook.com/georgialibraries>
<https://www.twitter.com/georgialibs>

Join our email list <http://georgialibraries.org/subscription/> for stories
of Georgia libraries making an impact in our communities.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/evergreen-acq/attachments/20190723/736ed71c/attachment-0001.html>