IM 8.37 (May 2023) Participant Dictionary, Valid Values, and Validations & Migration Document

[CommunityJedi22]

Please see the attached IMPD for IM 8.37 and the related Migration Document aligned with the GDSN v3.123 release. This release will contain some non-backward compatible changes (renaming of XML Names, deletion of attributes, and valid values).  Here are the changes since the previously posted version:

We updated the IM PD for IM 8.37 to version v10. The updates are:

• Updated highlighting of deleted valid value
• Changed validation rule 1062 (IM code is gdsn1062) per GDSN Erata request

Please post your questions below.

[Brian2]

@CommunityJedi22 : thank you for this. It would be really nice with a date for when this goes to preprod ?

8.34 is being released this week. So: What about the Participant Dictionary Validations and the Release dates (prod and pre-prod) for releases IM8.35 and IM8.36 ? What are the plans for those?

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @Brian2 We post details for each update in our community calendar.  I agree we should mention this in these posts and will do so going forward.  

https://community.1worldsync.com/t5/Events-Calendar/Scheduled-Maintenance-for-Production/ec-p/5880#M...

We posted 8.37 because it is related to a large release in May and wants customers to have time to prepare for those large updates.  We will post updates for the smaller 8.35 and 8.36 updates as we get closer to those.

[Brian2]

Hi @CommunityJedi22 : Sorry to bother you again, but we have noticed the format has changed:

• The "Relationship Dependent Data (RDD) (Y/N)" column now includes values like TPN and TPN/TPD
• The column Global/Target Market Specific now has “G” and “G/L” as additional valid values

This started with 8.34. Is this intentional or a mistake? We can probably guess the meaning, but would you mind explaining your usage of this and the reason for the change? Maybe this is even documented somewhere?

Thank you for your help 

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @Brian2 and thanks for reaching out.  It is no bother at all.   We will fix those to be consistent. It is something we missed in converting the GDSN Lingo into IM lingo.  Thanks for letting us know.

[Uw]

Hello,

How should i do with the migration ?

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello our Product team is working on these updates and will post a revised version soon.  Thank you for your patience.

[c2b30]

On the latest data dictionary it states that the Depth, Height, Width and Gross Weight value can corrected if the change is >20%, which I do not believe is accurate. It should be <20%. 

[CommunityJedi22]

@c2b30 Yes, that seems correct to me as well.  Thank you, I will send that to our Product team now for revision.

[LeslieH]

Hi Team,

Do you have the XML samples for M2M syndication available with  8.37 yet (May Release)?

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @LeslieH that is a good question.  They are not yet ready and we are looking to release them in the next couple of weeks.

[Brian2]

Hi @CommunityJedi22 ,

We have an automated processing of the Participant_Dictionary. That process is choking on two issues, that I think are mistakes

1:

The datatypes 

• VV/ProductTextureAgencyCode
• VV/ProductTextureCode

have in 8.37 become:

• VV/ProductstringureAgencyCode
• VV/ProductstringureCode

2:

Row 2520 has value #REF! in the two columns:

• Min Length (Non-floats)/ # of digits after the decimal (floats)
• Max Length (Non-floats)/ Total digits including decimal (floats)

We can manually work our way around, but we strive to not manually fix the Participant_Dictionary prior to using it

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @Brian2 we are looking at this and will get back to you

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @Brian2 .  I checked with our Product team SME and he confirmed we will get this fixed on our end quickly.  Thanks for the call out.

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello, @Brian2 I have an update for you.  These will be corrected in the next IM PD 8.37 v8 to be posted next week.

[Brian2]

@CommunityJedi22 : After the recent update of 1WS Preprod, we have been testing 8.37.

It seems you have a policy to keep old attributes and values in the Participant_Dictionary: You mark them red, rather than deleting them (examples: packageMarksFreeFrom, healthClaimCode, nutritionalClaim, healthClaimDescription)

The import however does rejects them, so they are in fact deleted and no longer valid after 8.37.

As mentioned in my commment above we have an automated processing of the Participant_Dictionary.

Is the color the only way to deduce that the attribute is in fact not a valid 8.37 attribute and can we also assume that all red row are in fact truly deleted ? Or is there a better way to filter out non-8.37 attributes from the 8.37 Participant_Dictionary

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @Brian2 and thank you for using the customer community.  I raised your question with our Product team who will take a look and get back to us.

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @Brian2 .  Regarding the color and the comment, we put them in read so that folks get the message that they are being deleted. If we just delete the lines, then we get asked what happened to them. The lines are red until the next IM version, then they are removed.

You could open the sheet before your import and delete the red lines. Then they are not there at all.

[Brian2]

@CommunityJedi22 : Thank you. I understand.

We'll do as you recommend and implement the following policy when we deduce the data model: "Delete all red rows prior to parsing the file". We might be able to automate it.

Thank you for all your help

[lvanhouten]

@CommunityJedi22 - in the Migration Document, it references a change to Allergen Code AX migrating to AW and 1WS will perform the migration.

We do not want our products migrated over to the new code.

If we decided we wanted to migrate our products to another code or wish to remove this allergen from all our records, is this something 1WS will still perform for us?  

Thanks!

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @lvanhouten I am checking on this for you with our Product team and will get back to you with an answer.

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @lvanhouten .  You can certainly move/change your value at any time. We will only migrate to that value, and will only migrate items that still have that value when we get to the release

[lvanhouten]

@CommunityJedi22 - will you migrate only active items that still have that value when the new release is implemented or also discontinued items?

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @lvanhouten .  That is a good question.  We would have to migrate every item that has the value since the attributes are being removed.

[RebeccaNichols]

Thank you for updated documentation! Do you have an updated version of the Data Recipient 1WorldSync XML Samples? 

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @RebeccaNichols The Library contains this info for you.  Please see HERE

[RebeccaNichols]

Found it! Is there an updated version to go along with the updated migration document? 

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @RebeccaNichols they are both on the same article:

https://community.1worldsync.com/t5/IM-Participant-Dictionary/IM-8-37-May-2023-Participant-Dictionar...

[RebeccaNichols]

Sorry, looking for an updated version of the recipient XML sample document. The only version I see is v1. 

[RebeccaNichols]

And I am unable to download it -says no permissions 

[CommunityJedi22]

Here is the latest version:

https://community.1worldsync.com/t5/1WorldSync-XML-Docs/1WorldSync-XML-Samples-for-Data-Recipients-f...

You have no restrictions on your access at all

[nunos]

Hello,

I wanted to flag some incoherences in the Participant dictionary and clarify some doubts:

In sheet Data Source XML Guide:

1. in column 1WS Catalogue Request Attribute attributes ti (line 83330), tradeItemCompositionDepth (line 84370), and tradeItemCompositionWidth (line 84390) don't have a valid value on column FLX. What should be the correct value? Y or N?
2. Attributes nfpaHazardInformation and displayScreenSizeRange are defined as an AG but the childs are absent. Could you please correct this situation? 

In sheet IM Participant Dictionary

1. what is the difference between VV/booleanVV and VV/boolean? 

Thank you 

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @nunos and thanks for reaching out via our customer community.  We are taking a look for you here..

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @nunos .  Thank you for your excellent feedback.  We took a look and all three are N for FLX. and the VV/boolean is the same as VV/booleanVV. This will all be corrected in the IM PD for IM 8.38 v1 which will be posted in a week or so.

[nunos]

Thank you for your answer @CommunityJedi22 

Also found that invoiceCostInformation has an XML Structure type AGRM but their children are not listed (sheet Data Source XML Guide).

Like @Brian2 we also have an automatic update on top of the participant dictionary and we cannot detect the fields marked as red. Could I suggest adding a column that indicates if the field was deleted (with a simple Y or N) so it can be easy to be parsed?

Thank you

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @nunos .  On the delete column, we place a note in the last column. We will consider a new column in the future. On the groups with no children, should not be listed and will be removed.

[nunos]

Other question: 

Product Texture Agency Code and Product Texture Code have the type VV/ProductstringureAgencyCode which is not a valid type. Is this a typo?

According to release 8.35 and the IM Valid Values this should have the types VV/ProductTextureAgencyCode and VV/ProductTextureCode respectively.

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @nunos We fixed the main attributes but missed the component level ones. We also found another for Textile. Wefixed that in the next version when we fixed the boolean ones

[stone]

The value CHB - Chub is currently not listed in the Participant Dictionary under the IM Valid Values tab for the attribute Packaging Type Code. I can select it as a value in item management and on the FUSE sheet. I had to ask my PIM supplier to add it as a value, and I imagine there might be other service providers that are not supporting that value since it is not currently reflected as a valid value in the documentation. 

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello, this will also be added as part of the next revision. Thank you

[lflanary]

This is probably related to the upgrade but I am now seeing synchronization errors from one customer that states "the flex type (AQM) in the setup is invalid for the alternate Classification/description attribute.  Sorry, but I do not know what flex type (AQM) even means.  I am only familiar with the flux capacitor....:)

[CommunityJedi22]

Hello @lflanary good one, love that.  Can you confirm you send your content info via AS2?  If so, I recommend looking at the Schema changes for 8.37

[lflanary]

Now I will have to show my ignorance.  I have no idea about AS2 - don't think we send via that because we only use the 1WorldSync Item Management portal......How do I check about the AS2?  

[CommunityJedi22]

@lflanary I do not see recent transactions via AS2 so I assume you are using the IM GUI exclusively.  Can you provide me with an example GTIN so I can take a closer look?

[lflanary]

10023709004077

10023709004084

I have only received this synch error with Albertsons Companies and I have these items published to several others. 

Thank you!

[CommunityJedi22]

ok @lflanary I understand.  The resync process actually wrapped up late so can you take another look now for errors from any of the PI recipients?

[lflanary]

The two above mentioned errors are still showing up on me end.  I can wait and check back tomorrow....

[lflanary]

The Synchronization errors are still showing today.  Thanks.

[CommunityJedi22]

@lflanary From which customer are you getting that error message?  I am taking another look for you.

[lflanary]

Albertsons

[CommunityJedi22]

Sorry @lflanary I saw that you had already mentioned Albertsons earlier.  I talked about this error this morning and believe there may be something we need to look at as another customer reported this error with pubs to Kroger and Albertsons (PI).  I am following up with tech escalation points and will get back to you.  I appreciate your patience.