I have been automatically generating FAs in webMethods successfully for several years.
A new partner was added and this partner does not generate and FA automatically.
I have checked to make certain ISA14 is 1.
I am processing these transactions at the GS level as I am all other inbound 850s and 860s.
I have checked the agreements to make sure
autoGenerateFA is on
FALevel is Default
processDocument is ALL
FAReconciliation is set to false
The verion 4010 the EDIFFSchema exists in wmEDIfor TN
Does any one have any suggestions on what else can be checked. I have even deleted the trading partner agreement and re-added it.
Is your new TP EDITPA status shown in as Agreed mode??Are you seeing any error in the logs esp for this partner??What else you did setup in TN for adding this new TP?? any processing rules,Extid’s matches with the particular Inbound Doc?? I know you are running successfully with autoFA process for other TP’s…but just trying to crosscheck…
My new TP EDITPA status shown is Agreed mode.
When I look at the activity log there are NO errors and it shows Processing Complete.
I do have processing rules and it shows it kicked off the correct processing rule, the Extid Criteria is EDI Group Type Equals PO and it matches with the particular Inbound Doc.
I read Appendix A Non-Standard Processing in webMethods EDI Module User’s Guide V6.1 and I got a little confused. Is processing at the group level considered Non-Standard. The rest of the TP work and they have extended criterial in the processing rules. Just wondering.
Any response is helpful even if I am rechecking.
When FAs are generated automatically do they show up on the transaction log as an entry?
I dont think so…but it will log an entry in the EDITracking table though…
Let me save you some time.
The Automatically sent FA do have an entry in TN
My problem is someone else set this up and they failed to properly set up a Delivery Method in TN. They also failed to set up a processing rule.
It is working fine now.
I really appreciate you assistance. I was running out of ideas.
Hmm…thats where i doubted either in the processing rule or partner configuration side etc…Anyways glad to hear it is working now…