Add VAT rate resolution and VAT amount difference for E-Document purchases

[ventselartur]

Why

When importing e-documents for purchase processing, the system did not automatically resolve VAT Product Posting Groups from extracted VAT rates. Users had to manually identify and assign the correct VAT posting group for each line, which was error-prone and time-consuming. Additionally, rounding differences between the document's total VAT and the computed line-level VAT amounts were not reconciled, leading to posting discrepancies.

Summary

• Added VAT Product Posting Group resolution during Prepare Draft — matches the extracted VAT rate against VAT Posting Setup entries (Normal VAT and Reverse Charge VAT only) for the vendor's VAT Bus. Posting Group
• Added [BC] VAT Prod. Posting Group and [BC] VAT Rate Mismatch fields on E-Document Purchase Line with OnValidate/OnLookup support
• Added VAT amount difference computation and application to purchase lines when finalizing drafts, respecting Allow VAT Difference and Max. VAT Difference Allowed settings
• Added "Resolve VAT Group Purch EDoc" and "Apply VAT Diff. For Purch EDoc" toggles on Purchases & Payables Setup
• Improved ADI handler to prefer the unambiguous taxRate field and properly disambiguate the tax field between percentage and monetary values
• Added comprehensive test codeunit E-Doc Purch. VAT Tests covering resolution, mismatch detection, OnValidate behavior, and VAT calculation type filtering
• Updated existing structured validation tests to reflect corrected VAT rate expectations

Fixes AB#619564

[github-actions]

$\textbf{🟡\ Medium\ Severity\ —\ Style} \quad \color{gray}{\texttt{\small Iteration\ 1}}$

All three VAT rate assertions changed to same value

Three separate line assertions (originally 6, 3, 1) have all been changed to 10 without a corresponding update to the mock ADI test data source. This suggests the new taxRate field in the mock always returns a single fixed value, meaning the new disambiguation logic (ResolveVATRateFromADI) is not meaningfully exercised by these tests—different code paths (percentage string, percentage currency, monetary tax) remain uncovered.

Recommendation:

• Update the mock ADI test fixture to provide distinct and realistic tax/taxRate values per line (e.g., a percentage string, a percentage currency value, and a monetary amount) so that each branch of ResolveVATRateFromADI is tested individually.

// In mock data for line 1: taxRate = "20%"  → expected VAT Rate = 20
// In mock data for line 2: tax as currency "6.00" + sub total 100 → expected VAT Rate = 6
// In mock data for line 3: taxRate = "VAT 5" → expected VAT Rate = 5
Assert.AreEqual(20, EDocumentPurchaseLine."VAT Rate", 'Line 1 VAT rate mismatch');

Line mapping was unavailable, so this was posted as an issue comment.

_{👍 useful · ❤️ especially valuable · 👎 wrong - reply with why}

[Groenbech96]

Great work.

[github-actions]

$\textbf{🟡\ Medium\ Severity\ —\ Style} \quad \color{gray}{\texttt{\small Iteration\ 1}}$

Misleading Procedure Name: No 'Apply' Happens

ComputeAndApplyVATAmountDifference() computes the VAT diff and logs it, but does not actually apply it to any line — that happens later in ApplyVATDifferenceToLines(). The name implies a side-effect that does not occur here, which is confusing for future maintainers.

Recommendation:

• Rename the procedure to reflect its actual behavior, e.g., ComputeAndLogVATAmountDifference().

    local procedure ComputeAndLogVATAmountDifference(EDocumentPurchaseHeader: Record "E-Document Purchase Header"; TotalLineVATAmount: Decimal)

Line mapping was unavailable, so this was posted as an issue comment.

_{👍 useful · ❤️ especially valuable · 👎 wrong - reply with why}

[github-actions]

$\textbf{🟡\ Medium\ Severity\ —\ Style} \quad \color{gray}{\texttt{\small Iteration\ 1}}$

Missing Newline at End of File

The file ends without a trailing newline (git diff shows '\ No newline at end of file'). This causes noise in diffs, breaks some Unix tooling, and violates the repo's consistent file formatting.

Recommendation:

• Add a newline character after the closing } of the codeunit.

}

Line mapping was unavailable, so this was posted as an issue comment.

_{👍 useful · ❤️ especially valuable · 👎 wrong - reply with why}