Question on EANCOM versions

Post author

Hi all, 

I am quite interested in this library for mapping a client's EANCOM files.

I found this sample - but noticed a slight difference in the headers we receive in our client's DESADV file. 

It looks like it uses the EANCOM D96A version - but not UN but EN referencing - will this standard validate with the EANCOM libraries in EDI Fabric- the sample code I found on your site 

//  Message header
            result.UNH = new UNH();
            result.UNH.MessageReferenceNumber_01 = controlNumber.PadLeft(14, '0');
            result.UNH.MessageIdentifier_02 = new S009();
            result.UNH.MessageIdentifier_02.MessageType_01 = "DESADV";
            result.UNH.MessageIdentifier_02.MessageVersionNumber_02 = "D";
            result.UNH.MessageIdentifier_02.MessageReleaseNumber_03 = "96A";
            result.UNH.MessageIdentifier_02.ControllingAgencyCoded_04 = "UN";

The header file we receive from our client. 


Appreciate any guidance anyone can give. Thanks in advance :) 



  • Comment author


    To answer your question - "will this standard validate with the EANCOM libraries in EDI Fabric":

    EANCOM and EDIFACT are very similar and processed with the same reader & writer in EdiFabric (EdifactReader and EdifactWriter).

    The following templates are provided for EANCOM and DESADV D96A is included.

    Your header is for EANCOM D96A and you can test your file with it by downloading the EANCOM templates for D96A from EdiNation. The templates from NuGet included in the trial, EdiFabric.Templates.Edifact, are only for EDIFACT D96A, so you must follow the steps in this article , and use paragraph Install the EDI templates from EdiNation for the templates.




  • Comment author

    Brilliant, thanks for the quick response and guidance.

    I will be sure to commence a trial and follow the instructions in the article mentioned above once I have appropriate time to get most out of the trial period. 

    It really looks like a great range of tools, looking forward to giving it a go - as well as exploring your API option as well. Thanks again for getting back to me so fast :)


Please sign in to leave a comment.