837 GS05 Functional group Header

Post author


We are having trouble parsing 837s that have 8 places in the gs05 field. The standard documentation for this says it can have 4 to 8 places. 

When we change to only parse out 6 places the 837 processes successfully.

Anyone have an idea on this?




  • Comment author


    Parsing the GS05 time field is irrelevant to the number of characters in it, it could be 4,6 or 100. It's the validation afterwards that will report data type inconsistency.

    It can't be the places, something else is causing you the issue, without any data\example we are unable to guess it. My best bet is that you have a non-alphanumeric symbol somewhere.

    You can raise an issue and attach the sample data, could be your file with the isa and gs segments only.

  • Comment author

    Yes, the parsing is not the issue. EdiFabric parsed our file correctly, it’s the validation having issues.

    What we are trying to do is after the edi file parsed, try verifying it matching the standards. When using EdiFabric’s Validate functions, it came out Invalid Time from the GS segment and BHT segments.

    Here’s our GS segment:


    You see the GS05, it has a time 05213094, which is a 8 digits time value, and according to 5010 837 standards (the valid time value is 4 to 8 digits), it’s valid. But when we using EdiFabric to validate this GS segment, it reports out an error as invalid time. When changing this time value to a 6 digits value 052130, it’s passed the validation.

    The same goes for the BHT segment:


    The same 8 digits time value in BHT05, EdiFabric’s Validate function reports out as Invalid Time, changed to 6 digits time value 052130 passed the validation.

    When we generate an acknowledgement file the error we receive looks like this:

    Can you look into this to see what may cause EdiFabric report it as an Invalid Time?


  • Comment author


    This has been identified as a bug and will be fixed in the next release (due in the next couple of weeks).

    Could you please raise this as an issue here where it automatically gets reported to the work queue ? 



Please sign in to leave a comment.