Menu

Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 validator

POST https://veriport.io/api/v1/einvoice/validate runs a Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 document through the same three layers an access point checks before it sends: the UBL 2.1 XML schema, the CEN EN 16931 business rules (release 1.3.16) and OpenPeppol's PEPPOL-EN16931-UBL rules (release 3.0.21), and answers with the published rule ids and messages. On the evidence set, this check and the KoSIT validator running the same Peppol rules named the same rules on every file. 5 calls a check; 4 free checks a day without a key on the free validator.

What is checked, in order

  • XML schema: UBL 2.1 Invoice or CreditNote (the OASIS schemas the KoSIT configuration ships). An element out of order or unknown to UBL fails here as XSD with the line.
  • EN 16931: the CEN business rules (BR-*, BR-CO-* arithmetic, the VAT category rules, BR-DEC-* decimals, BR-CL-* code lists, UBL-CR-* syntax).
  • Peppol BIS 3.0: PEPPOL-EN16931-R* (one note, a buyer reference or an order reference, the electronic addresses, no empty elements…), the code lists (PEPPOL-EN16931-CL*), PEPPOL-COMMON-* identifier checks and the national rules OpenPeppol carries (DE-R, NL-R, NO-R …).
  • Veriport’s own practice checks, as warnings only and marked source: "veriport": the Belgian structured communication +++123/4567/89002+++ (mod 97), Belgian rates 21/12/6 %, an enterprise number that differs from the VAT number.

Does it agree with the reference validator?

The evidence script (pnpm validate:official, published on the product page) writes ten Belgian Peppol samples through the API and runs them through the KoSIT validator configured with the same UBL schema, CEN rules and PEPPOL-EN16931-UBL 3.0.21 (compiled with SchXslt), then through this validator. All ten were accepted by both, and broken documents (a wrong 0208 key, two notes, a misordered element, a unit code outside the code list) were rejected by both with the same rule ids.

The request and the answer

Send the XML as the raw body or as the file field of a multipart form. The answer says valid, the profile it detected, and lists errors and warnings with the rule id, the XPath of the element and the published message.

curl — validate a file (no key: 4 checks a day per address)
curl -X POST "https://veriport.io/api/v1/einvoice/validate" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/xml" \
  --data-binary @invoice.xml
200 OK — a document breaking PEPPOL-COMMON-R043
{
  "valid": false,
  "profile": "peppol-bis",
  "format": "peppol-bis",
  "syntax": "ubl",
  "container": "xml",
  "errors": [
    {
      "rule": "PEPPOL-COMMON-R043",
      "severity": "fatal",
      "path": "/ubl:Invoice/cac:AccountingSupplierParty/cac:Party/cbc:EndpointID",
      "message": "Belgian enterprise number MUST be stated in the correct format.",
      "source": "peppol-ubl"
    }
  ],
  "warnings": []
}

A report is charged whether the document is valid or not; an unreadable file (not XML, a PDF without embedded data) is refused with 422 einvoice_unreadable and costs nothing.

Creating Peppol BIS files instead

POST https://veriport.io/api/v1/einvoice/create with "format": "peppol-bis" writes Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 for a Belgian seller (v1): enterprise-number endpoints under 0208 derived from the VAT number when you give none, the structured communication as payment reference, the franchise mention for the small-business scheme, intra-Community supplies and the EU reverse charge. The file is checked by these rules before it is returned (20 calls).

Questions

Is this the official Peppol validator?
No: it runs the official rule files, published by OpenPeppol and CEN, in a validator of its own, and the evidence compares it with the KoSIT validator file by file. The Peppol network itself validates at the sending access point.
Are the Belgian rules included?
The Peppol release carries no Belgian national rule set; the Belgian specifics are the 0208 identifier check (PEPPOL-COMMON-R043, published) and Veriport’s own checks of Belgian practice, reported as warnings.
Can it check a CII Peppol file?
Yes: a CII document claiming Peppol BIS 3.0 is checked with the CEN CII rules and PEPPOL-EN16931-CII 3.0.21; UBL is what Belgian access points exchange.
Is my file stored?
No. It is read in memory for the request; the usage row keeps the endpoint and the profile, never content.

4 checks a day without an account, the same rules as the API.

Check a file for free

Sources