Results for “je_fi_number_validation”

24 results




Overview
Explore in AI Chat

AI-generated from documented ETRM metadata — verify critical details on the linked pages.

Overview

JE_FI_NUMBER_VALIDATION is a reference and validation table within the Oracle E-Business Suite European Localizations module for Finland (JE product). It is owned by the AP schema and holds the set of values used by the Finnish localization to validate numbering and identifier data entered into EBS forms, reports, and concurrent programs. In R12.1.1 and R12.2.2 the table serves as a lookup source for validation routines that enforce Finnish statutory numbering conventions — for example, business identity codes (Y-tunnus), reference numbers, and related numeric identifiers — before transactional or master data is committed.

The object is documented in the ETRM repository as a standalone table. Applying heuristic Data Vault modeling, it is best classified as a hub candidate: it contains a single business-meaningful column that serves as the unique identifier, with no foreign key dependencies to other documented tables. Because no descriptive or historical attributes are present, it does not behave as a satellite, and because it holds no relationships to other entities, it does not behave as a link.

Key Information Stored

The documented physical schema for JE_FI_NUMBER_VALIDATION consists of a single column, which is both the primary key and the sole business attribute:

  • VALUE — The validated numeric or alphanumeric identifier that satisfies Finnish localization numbering rules. Constrained by the primary key JE_FI_NUMBER_VALIDATION_PK, this column simultaneously acts as the surrogate key in the physical model and as the single business-key candidate in the logical model. There is no separate system-generated sequence column and no additional descriptive or audit columns documented.

Because only one column is documented, the table functions as a controlled list of permitted values rather than a transactional entity. Any application logic that requires contextual meaning (for example, which document type or legal entity a value applies to) must derive that context from the calling form, report parameter, or concurrent program rather than from this table.

Common Use Cases and Queries

Typical usage centers on validation and lookup. In Oracle Forms, a WHEN-VALIDATE-ITEM trigger or an LOV query may check an entered value against this table before allowing the record to save. In concurrent processing, a PL/SQL validation routine can raise an error when a value is absent from the list.

A basic existence check looks like:

  • SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ap.je_fi_number_validation WHERE value = :input_value;

Extracting the full validation set for a report or extraction:

  • SELECT value FROM ap.je_fi_number_validation ORDER BY value;

Reporting scenarios typically include reconciliation of Finnish statutory submissions, where all permitted identifiers must be enumerated, and data-quality audits that verify master data such as suppliers or customers against the validated set. Because the table is schema-qualified under AP, queries run by non-privileged users require appropriate grants or must be executed within the AP schema context.

Related Objects

The ETRM metadata identifies this object as standalone, with no foreign key relationships to other tables. Consequently, dependent objects are not joined through declared referential constraints but through application-level logic in the Finnish localization:

  • JE_FI_NUMBER_VALIDATION_PK — the primary key constraint enforcing uniqueness on VALUE.
  • AP.JE_FI_NUMBER_VALIDATION — the schema-qualified table referenced by localization validation packages and concurrent programs.
  • Supplier and customer master tables validated by AP localization logic, such as AP_SUPPLIERS and its Finnish counterpart extensions.
  • Finnish localization reporting and payment programs that call validation APIs before processing.
  • Oracle Forms LOV definitions and validation triggers within the Finnish localizations responsibility.

Because the object is standalone and its schema is intentionally minimal, change management should focus on data stewardship of the VALUE list rather than on structural modification. Adding columns would alter the documented one-column contract and should be treated as a localization customization.