Hello. Thank you for this detailed project. I've been having issues with Phase 2 QR, getting the following errors in ZATCA's XML Web validator :

category : QR_CODE_ERROR
code :publicKey
message : public key of the certificate does not match with qr code certificate

category : QR_CODE_ERROR
code :hashedXml
message : hashedXml does not match with qr code hashedXml

category : QR_CODE_ERROR
code :certificate signature
message : certificate signature value in the invoice doesn't match the certificate signature value in tag 9 of the QR code

Let's take the hashedXml error first : I believe that ZATCA requires the XML to be hashed into SHA256 binary object before converting to base64, however the function "getInvoiceHash(invoice_xml)" takes the plain SHA256 and convert directly to base64. could that be the reason for the HashedXml error ?

I have pretty much the same example as you. When I run checkInvoiceCompliance or reportInvoice I get Request failed with status code 400.

One more question, do I store PIH in a DB or how do you get it?

fie path : signing/index.js line No: 144 /**

• Removes header and footer from private key string.
• @param privatek_key_string ec-secp256k1 private key string.
• @returns String base64 encoded private key body. */ const cleanUpPrivateKeyString = (certificate_string) => { return certificate_string.replace("-----BEGIN EC PRIVATE KEY-----\n", "").replace("-----END EC PRIVATE KEY-----", "").trim();

}; this above function is not returning the trim certificate as it is not matching -----BEGIN EC PRIVATE KEY-----\n because of the that additional /n . Hence the process is getting out of the execution.

@wes4m sample JSON { "uuid":"6f4d20e0-6bfe-4a80-9389-7dabe6620f12", "custom_id":"EGS1-886431145", "model":"IOS", "CRN_number":"454634645645654", "VAT_name":"Wesam Alzahir", "VAT_number":"301121971500003", "location":{ "city":"Khobar", "city_subdivision":"West", "street":"King Fahahd st", "plot_identification":"0000", "building":"0000", "postal_zone":"31952" }, "branch_name":"My Branch Name", "branch_industry":"Food", "invoice_counter_number":"1", "invoice_serial_number":"EGS1-886431145-1", "issue_date":"2022-03-13", "issue_time":"14:40:40", "previous_invoice_hash":"NWZlY2ViNjZmZmM4NmYzOGQ5NTI3ODZjNmQ2OTZjNzljMmRiYzIzOWRkNGU5MWI0NjcyOWQ3M2EyN2ZiNTdlOQ==", "line_items":[ { "id":"1", "name":"TEST NAME", "quantity":5, "tax_exclusive_price":10, "VAT_percent":0.15, "other_taxes":[ { "percent_amount":1 } ], "discounts":[ { "amount":0, "reason":"A discount" }, { "amount":0, "reason":"A second discount" } ] } ] }

Below is the xml generated from the sample json
cac:TaxTotal <cbc:TaxAmount currencyID="SAR">57.50</cbc:TaxAmount> cac:TaxSubtotal <cbc:TaxableAmount currencyID="SAR">50.00</cbc:TaxableAmount> <cbc:TaxAmount currencyID="SAR">7.50</cbc:TaxAmount> cac:TaxCategory <cbc:ID schemeAgencyID="6" schemeID="UN/ECE 5305">S</cbc:ID> cbc:Percent15.00</cbc:Percent> cac:TaxScheme <cbc:ID schemeAgencyID="6" schemeID="UN/ECE 5153">VAT</cbc:ID> </cac:TaxScheme> </cac:TaxCategory> </cac:TaxSubtotal> cac:TaxSubtotal <cbc:TaxableAmount currencyID="SAR">50.00</cbc:TaxableAmount> <cbc:TaxAmount currencyID="SAR">50.00</cbc:TaxAmount> cac:TaxCategory <cbc:ID schemeAgencyID="6" schemeID="UN/ECE 5305">S</cbc:ID> cbc:Percent100.00</cbc:Percent> cac:TaxScheme <cbc:ID schemeAgencyID="6" schemeID="UN/ECE 5153">VAT</cbc:ID> </cac:TaxScheme> </cac:TaxCategory> </cac:TaxSubtotal> </cac:TaxTotal> cac:TaxTotal <cbc:TaxAmount currencyID="SAR">57.50</cbc:TaxAmount> </cac:TaxTotal> cac:LegalMonetaryTotal <cbc:LineExtensionAmount currencyID="SAR">50.00</cbc:LineExtensionAmount> <cbc:TaxExclusiveAmount currencyID="SAR">50.00</cbc:TaxExclusiveAmount> <cbc:TaxInclusiveAmount currencyID="SAR">107.5</cbc:TaxInclusiveAmount> ?? On what basic this value is coming <cbc:AllowanceTotalAmount currencyID="SAR">0</cbc:AllowanceTotalAmount> <cbc:PrepaidAmount currencyID="SAR">0</cbc:PrepaidAmount> <cbc:PayableAmount currencyID="SAR">107.5</cbc:PayableAmount>--?? </cac:LegalMonetaryTotal> cac:InvoiceLine cbc:ID1</cbc:ID> <cbc:InvoicedQuantity unitCode="PCE">5</cbc:InvoicedQuantity> <cbc:LineExtensionAmount currencyID="SAR">50.00</cbc:LineExtensionAmount> cac:TaxTotal <cbc:TaxAmount currencyID="SAR">57.50</cbc:TaxAmount> <cbc:RoundingAmount currencyID="SAR">107.50</cbc:RoundingAmount> ???? </cac:TaxTotal> cac:Item cbc:NameTEST NAME</cbc:Name> cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory cbc:IDS</cbc:ID> cbc:Percent15.00</cbc:Percent> cac:TaxScheme cbc:IDVAT</cbc:ID> </cac:TaxScheme> </cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory> cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory cbc:IDS</cbc:ID> cbc:Percent100.00</cbc:Percent> cac:TaxScheme cbc:IDVAT</cbc:ID> </cac:TaxScheme> </cac:ClassifiedTaxCategory> </cac:Item> cac:Price <cbc:PriceAmount currencyID="SAR">10</cbc:PriceAmount> cac:AllowanceCharge cbc:ChargeIndicatorfalse</cbc:ChargeIndicator> cbc:AllowanceChargeReasonA discount</cbc:AllowanceChargeReason> <cbc:Amount currencyID="SAR">0.00</cbc:Amount> </cac:AllowanceCharge> cac:AllowanceCharge cbc:ChargeIndicatorfalse</cbc:ChargeIndicator> cbc:AllowanceChargeReasonA second discount</cbc:AllowanceChargeReason> <cbc:Amount currencyID="SAR">0.00</cbc:Amount> </cac:AllowanceCharge> </cac:Price> </cac:InvoiceLine> Correct me if I am wrong I think there is miscalculation, I have mention the spots in bold in the above xml which show the miscalculation. Kindly help me to understand on that basis the value 107.50 is calculated and what should be the value inside cbc:RoundingAmount

     <cac:TaxTotal>
        <cbc:TaxAmount currencyID="SAR">57.50</cbc:TaxAmount>
        _**<cbc:RoundingAmount currencyID="SAR">??</cbc:RoundingAmount>**_     ????
    </cac:TaxTotal>

I'm requesting ZATCA invoice compliance check API with UUID generated for my device, But the invoiceXML is using another generated UUID, So the API return the following error:

"errorMessages": [
      {
        "type": "ERROR",
        "code": "INVOICE_UUID_VALIDATION",
        "category": "MISSING_UUID_IN_INVOICE",
        "message": "UUID provided in the invoice doesn't match UUID in the provided Request",
        "status": "ERROR"
      },

Just a question now: Do we add a unique UUID per each invoice, or it's only 1 UUID per each EGS generating invoices ?

Hey, first of all thanks for your tremendous efforts, I was trying the library out and it works great, the compliance API succeeds. However, I can't seem to be able to write the generated XML to a file then upload that to the sandbox portal validator.

Errors:

Code used to write to file:

fs.writeFile(__dirname + '/tmp/test.xml', signed_invoice_string, {
            flag: "w"
          }, function(err) {
            if (err) {
              return console.log(err);
            }
            console.log("The file was saved!");
});

Validator link: https://sandbox.zatca.gov.sa/TestXML

fixed wrong tag error and also fixed error in generating private key and CSR files because it was throwing error on them due to there being no tmp folder but still looking for an alternative to XML dom library due to its critical vulnerability
hope that I have helped develop this library. Thanks

• [x] Reverting windows OpenSSL trailing PEM key \r issue. I have tested this with multiple windows devices. And it was causing issues because the OpenSSL version did not add a \r as expected. So this seems like a rare issue that happened on one device thus I'm reverting it. If you have this issue then modify the lib manually.

• [x] Adding custom TEMP_FOLDER through environment vars.

• [x] Support for other languages in seller_name (UTF-8).

Hello,

I'm not a crypto expert so this is a humble attempt to replace openssl with js

• I've deleted csr_template.ts file since csr config is not a template now, this can be reverted if you prefer to

• in sign I had to replace crypto createSign with jsrsasign sign method as the current solution couldn't parse privatekey generated by jsrsasign most likely due to the new line added being \r\n not \n anyway this can be reverted if we use a another library to create keys, I tried ecdsa-secp256r1 and it worked without any modification to the original signing functions

• @fidm/x509 module can be replaced with jsrsasign - no need for 2 deps

• sorry for some of the unrelated changes, it's just my editor removing extra white spaces, maybe we should use a code formatter :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

Hey @wes4m, Just want to discuss few things. So, in this repo are we doing only simplified tax invoice? If yes, please suggest me on how we can post below transactions. ● For Tax Invoice, code is 380 and subtype is 01. ex. <cbc:InvoiceTypeCode name=”010000”>380</cbc:InvoiceTypeCode> ● For Simplified Tax Invoice, code is 380 and subtype is 02. ex. <cbc:InvoiceTypeCode name=”020000”>380</cbc:InvoiceTypeCode> ● For tax invoice debit note, code is 383 and subtype is 01. ex. <cbc:InvoiceTypeCode name=”010000”>383</cbc:InvoiceTypeCode> ● For simplified debit note, code is 383 and subtype is 02. ex. <cbc:InvoiceTypeCode name=”020000”>383</cbc:InvoiceTypeCode> ● For tax invoice credit note, code is 381 and subtype is 01. ex. <cbc:InvoiceTypeCode name=”010000”>381</cbc:InvoiceTypeCode> ● For simplified credit note, code is 381 and subtype is 02. ex. <cbc:InvoiceTypeCode name=”020000”>381</cbc:InvoiceTypeCode> ● For self-billed invoice, code is 389 and subtype is 01. ex. <cbc:InvoiceTypeCode name=”010000”>389</cbc:InvoiceTypeCode>

@wes4m I have been working on this package since very long time and everything was good and running fine. Yesterday, I think zatca has updated the sandbox because of the there was no service available till today. Below message was in response everytime when I hit the API.

<html>
      <head><title>503 Service Temporarily Unavailable</title></head>
      <body>
          <center><h1>503 Service Temporarily Unavailable</h1></center>
          <hr><center>nginx</center>
      </body>
</html>

Now that the server is up and running again. I tried to execute the same request and I am facing below errors

{
  "infoMessages": [
      {
          "type": "INFO",
          "code": "XSD_ZATCA_VALID",
          "category": "XSD validation",
          "message": "Complied with UBL 2.1 standards in line with ZATCA specifications",
          "status": "PASS"
      }
  ],
  "warningMessages": [],
  "errorMessages": [
      {
          "type": "ERROR",
          "code": "GENERAL",
          "category": "BUSINESS_RULES",
          "message": "Unable to execute Business Rules validation",
          "status": "ERROR"
      },
      {
          "type": "ERROR",
          "code": "BR-KSA-EN16931-11",
          "category": "KSA",
          "message": "Invoice line net amount (BT-131) must equal (Invoiced quantity (BT-130) * (Item net price (BT-146) / item price base quantity (BT-149))-))- Sum of invoice line allowance amount (BT-136)",
          "status": "ERROR"
      },
      {
          "type": "ERROR",
          "code": "BR-KSA-EN16931-06",
          "category": "KSA",
          "message": "Charge on price level (BG-29) is NOT allowed. Only value 'false' allowed.",
          "status": "ERROR"
      },
      {
          "type": "ERROR",
          "code": "BR-KSA-EN16931-06",
          "category": "KSA",
          "message": "Charge on price level (BG-29) is NOT allowed. Only value 'false' allowed.",
          "status": "ERROR"
      }
  ],
  "status": "ERROR"
}

Don't understand what went wrong. After some research I see that it is related to lineitem Discount

"discounts": [
    { "amount": 2, "reason": "A discount" },
    { "amount": 2, "reason": "A second discount" }
]

I think there is some miscalculation while calculating the discounts or some new features they have updated in this publish Strange is that when I don't pass any discount the Invoice is getting reported.

Currently the only environment available is Sandbox, in case we want to move to production environment there is no way of doing that:

const settings = {
    API_VERSION: "V2",
    SANDBOX_BASEURL: "https://gw-apic-gov.gazt.gov.sa/e-invoicing/developer-portal",
    PRODUCTION_BASEURL: "TODO"
};