Have the party checked to receive 997, they send me 997 for inbound in the same outbound I pick up 944/945 I create a 997 for a 997... Whaaaaat???

Me again, I have a process it's been running for a while with 18 other partner. We started (at the request of the partner) without 997 (when I started this I knew nothing of BT/EDI, I still know pretty much the same).

A new partner demanded 997's, so I switched the checkbox on the party and it generates the 997 when a 944/945 is received but the problem is that they send everything from one /outbound/ folder in which are also sitting 997's they are sending me for 856/940's that I sent previously to an /inbound/ folder.

Please point me to some link that talks about this????

Thanks

February 10th, 2015 9:58am

Sorry, can you clarify the second paragraph?  Who's sending what?  Is the outbound folder you or them?

Are you saying they files are going in circles?

Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
February 10th, 2015 10:04am

The outbound folder is in a van that the partner uses, I ftp to the outbound and it brings back 944', 945's and 997's what is happening is that 997's are being generated (by me) for the 997's received from this folder ... 
February 10th, 2015 10:24am

Ok, so you pickup a 944 from 'outbound' and you generate a 997.

Then what?  What do you need to happen?

Or, are you saying that you are putting the 997's you generate in 'outbound' then picking them up again?

Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
February 10th, 2015 10:29am

that part is fine, I pick up a 944 and generate a 997 ... perfect .... only that 997's and 856's and 940's I send to an /inbound/ folder - I pickup 944's and 945's from an /outbound/ folder (at the van) ...

The partner, when they pickup their 856's and 940's from the /inbound/ folder send a 997 in the outbound folder,

so, when I am picking up 944's and 945's there are also 997's from the inbound process ... this is the punchline ... those 997's generate more 997's to be sent back to the partner and here I give up, I am going to have to strip 997's from the transmission before they get to my 944/945 process. 

February 10th, 2015 11:10am

One important point, BizTalk EDI will not generate a 997 for a 997.

Sorry, but the scenario still isn't very clear.  Stick to one transaction and instead of 'inbound' and 'outbound' which is ambiguous, say 'us' and 'them'.

You don't need to 'strip' the 997, just route it somewhere, like an Orchestration with just a Receive Shape.

Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
February 10th, 2015 11:29am

OK, as simple as possible... I am using BT 2013 straight (no R2) when I get a 997 from the sender my system is generating an ack (another 997) for the 997 they sent.
February 10th, 2015 11:39am

Are you absolutely sure about that?  That is not a behavior I have ever observed and against X12 rules.

For clarity, if the 997 is included in an Interchange other messages, they will all be included in the same BizTalk Batch so what you might be seeing is the Partner's 997 and the 997 you generate for the 944.

Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
February 10th, 2015 1:20pm

Hi Bico,

Port on which you are receiving the 997 from Partner, use PassThrough pipeline and dump it in one file share location.

(I dont think that you are doing anything with the received 997 from partner)

But generating 997 for received 997 is not a valid.

Thanks &Regards

Ammu.

February 10th, 2015 3:15pm

I thought this behavior was fixed in BT2013 http://blog.biztalk-info.com/2009/02/biztalk_2006_r2_edi_gotcha_sending_997s_in_response_to/

But this fixed my issue ....

Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
February 11th, 2015 11:06am

Please mark any helpful answers as such for the benefit of future readers.

There is nothing to fix, what you are seeing is the expected behavior.

Like I said, the BizTalk batch will include your Partner's 997s and your generated 997's.  That's how it works.

February 11th, 2015 11:40am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics