In this article, I will try to present a comparison between Value mapping and TPM UDFs for incorporating ISA and GS segment values in outbound EDI interfaces.
Requirement:
- Populating Sender ID, Sender ID Qualifier, Receiver ID, Receiver ID Qualifier,element separator, sub-element separator and segment separator for different business partners.
- Usage indicator based on environment (T - Test, P- Production)
Value Mapping Approach:
Example:
Mapping Details:
-Value mapping for vendor number conversion- SAP vendors are converted into Legacy Vendors
-Value mapping for retrieving sender/receiver IDs and qualifiers- The output combination is separated by a delimiter (:) , the values are split and mapped to respective fields (SplitID UDF)
-Value mapping for retrieving separators- The output combination is separated by a delimiter (:), the values are split using a simple UDF and mapped to respective separator fields (SpiltSep UDF)
- fillUpToLengthWithSpace UDF is used to add spaces to the first input to the UDF (spaces equal to second input)
- Parameter defined for usage indicator- run time T or P is assigned
ESR mapping
Value Maps-
UDFs used-
SplitSep
SplitID
fillUpToLengthWithSpace
NWDS configuration
Mass Export/Import-
Sample csv generated - maps can be added and the file can be imported
Reference - Value Mapping
Part II- Predefined UDFs - ISA and GS segments mapping - Value mapping v/s Predefined TPM UDFs - II
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
User | Count |
---|---|
37 | |
10 | |
5 | |
4 | |
4 | |
3 | |
3 | |
3 | |
2 | |
2 |