imsweb/x12-parser

270/271 5010 support

Edwardiv1 opened this issue · 9 comments

Is it possible to add support for the 270/271 5010 standard? So far I only see 4010 is supported.
Thanks

It's possible but we would need a configuration file similar to what is in the resources/mapping directory for the 4010 version.

Hi there. I am also interested in the support for the 270/271 5010 standard, so I am trying to resurrect this discussion. Looks like someone created a fork with such support:
https://github.com/nddipiazza/x12-parser/tree/issue_48_add_271_5010_support
Maybe it can be merged to origin?

Hi, Dev

We are facing the same issue that the server returns 271 in 5010 version, but the x12-parser only support 4010.

Also, I looked into the mapping xml and found that in 271.4010.X092.A1.xml, the valid value for ISA11 is "U". I think for other files, it can be any character, and most of the time, we can use "^" to avoid collision.

I10 Interchange Control Standards Identifier R 11 **U**

Please help take a look.

Thanks

we also need 270/271 5010 support, we have the same issue, server returns 270/271 5010.

It's possible but we would need a configuration file similar to what is in the resources/mapping directory for the 4010 version.

Hi @angelaszek , There's a fork that someone created to do this. Is there a problem with it preventing being merged?

Is there any guidance on how to create the configuration file?

Thanks

I don't see a pull request for that branch.

I would use one of the existing configuration files as a template and use the specifications for that implementation to update it accordingly. Unfortunately I don't know of an easier way and it is a big undertaking.

@angelaszek You're right - looks like there's no pull request for it. I was referring to #48 and the associated XML file at https://github.com/nddipiazza/x12-parser/blob/issue_48_add_271_5010_support/src/main/resources/mapping/271.5010.X279.A1.xml

Issue #49 was blocking it, but it's from 2021, so I don't know how relevant it is any more.
Any idea whether the XML is correct or salvageable? Or is it better to start from scratch?

Thanks

I did a quick scan of that XML file and it looks correct in terms of the structure I would expect. I think it is a good place to start.

Hi there. I did try out the https://github.com/nddipiazza/x12-parser/tree/issue_48_add_271_5010_support fork. Unfortunately, it did not work for me. So I wrote the 270 & 271 5010 XML files from scratch with structure based on the 4010 file. I've been testing it with multiple cases from various payers and so far it seems to be working as expected. Have raised a PR - #73