Latest Contributions by DianneMichalak

‎07-26-2023

Woman's intuition? Connect the dots (aka conspiracy theory)? Thought one: If different numbers of layers produce different results, maybe it is the actual number of the layer (index) that gets lost in the shuffle. I don't know enough about all the back end relationships in a gdb/sde, but I imagine the attachment table also has an index number. Thought two: We saw server type errors in the past related to indexing issues (probably different index than layers in a service). Thought three: Reshuffle the deck and see what happens.

‎07-26-2023

That is quite a pickle. I don't have an answer... just an idea. Try editing the index number of each layer manually. For the feature class and related table, try two odd numbers, two even numbers, in sequence (x, x+1), not in sequence. I haven't tried this idea. It is all I got at the moment.

‎06-05-2023

Great timing... I just republished a service that I prepped over a week ago. The user tested it today and noticed attachments were not sticking. (Same user that originally discovered the problem). The layer is a point feature in a dataset in sde. No attribute rules. It was added to the map that I publish from twice, each with a unique definition query (Active: Date Completed is Null Complete: Date Completed is not Null). The original feature service has 5 feature classes and one table. Some layers had attachments enabled. Some did not. Attachments did not stick in Field Maps. I tried adding the two layers into a different feature service (4 layers total) and overwrote the service. Attachments were enabled on all 4 layers. Attachments stuck in Field Maps. I tried publishing a feature service with only Active and Complete layers (same definition query as above) - 2 layers total. Attachments did not stick in Field Maps. I tried with only one layer (no definition query) and overwrote the feature service. Attachments stuck in Field Maps. I hope these details help you find your own magic combination.

‎04-24-2023

Yes, ESRI created a bug for this issue. BUG-000157495 A referenced feature service containing two layers, where one layer has attachments enabled, but the other does not. - results in the attachment not submitting Publishing a service containing only one layer results in Field Maps submitting attachments successfully. Publishing a service containing two layers that both have attachments enabled results in attachments submitting successfully.

‎03-26-2023

A user noticed an issue this week (20230322) with attachments submitted through Field Maps. The submitter can see the attachment but no other users can see it. However, if the attachment is loaded from ArcPro or the webmap in Portal, other users can see it. Same issue if a photo is taken. If the webmap is reloaded in Field Maps, the submitter no longer sees the attachment. My best guess is the photo remains on the ipad. The WFS has been updated over the past few weeks as we prep for the spring melt. Other operational teams have not noticed any issues with their attachments. I chose one service to test - overwrote, deleted, rebuilt, published - same issue. I created a new webmap. Field Maps was removed and reloaded. Two different ipads were reset. Tested with different user roles (admin, creator/user, mobile worker/data editor). I can not find any references to bugs on the most recent versions of Field Maps. This older reference is the closest I can find... BUG-000116972 The issue presented in Field Maps 23.1.0 Build 984 and Field Maps 22.4.2 Build 954. WFS was published from ArcPro 2.9.5 / ArcGIS Server 10.8.1 Build 14362 Testing on ipad OS Version 16.3.1 (reset on 20230324). Any help is appreciated.

‎10-15-2020

David, I made a few notes to capture the logic, the main pieces of the workflow and a few particulars. Hope it helps. This workflow was developed to improve efficiency of data entry. There are five components to the workflow. 1. Data Schema – fields in the feature class have the exact same schema as the related event table. 2. Collector map – data is entered in the field using the Multiple Edit tool. 3. Layer and table specific mxd – a definition query identifies entries in the feature class by selecting all features with a date stamp that falls within the past 24 hours. 4. Python script – identifies the mxd, feature class and related table. Three tools are run – Field Calculator (updates June 8 2020 07:23

‎10-15-2020

David, I made a few notes to capture the logic, the main pieces of the workflow and a few particulars. Hope it helps. This workflow was developed to improve efficiency of data entry. There are five components to the workflow. 1. Data Schema – fields in the feature class have the exact same schema as the related event table. 2. Collector map – data is entered in the field using the Multiple Edit tool. 3. Layer and table specific mxd – a definition query identifies entries in the feature class by selecting all features with a date stamp that falls within the past 24 hours. 4. Python script – identifies the mxd, feature class and related table. Three tools are run – Field Calculator (updates June 8 2020 07:23

‎10-15-2020

David, I made a few notes to capture the logic, the main pieces of the workflow and a few particulars. Hope it helps. This workflow was developed to improve efficiency of data entry. There are five components to the workflow. 1. Data Schema – fields in the feature class have the exact same schema as the related event table. 2. Collector map – data is entered in the field using the Multiple Edit tool. 3. Layer and table specific mxd – a definition query identifies entries in the feature class by selecting all features with a date stamp that falls within the past 24 hours. 4. Python script – identifies the mxd, feature class and related table. Three tools are run – Field Calculator (updates June 8 2020 07:23

‎08-04-2020

I created a process that creates related table entries, but it is clunky. It involves a script, mxd, matching schemas and an auto task. It leverages the multiple entry tool in Collector. It was created to help a small number of field users (maybe 6 specific users that I have worked with closely) enter data more efficiently. Consider this a duct tape and binding wire solution. Having an out of the box solution would be much better.

‎08-04-2020

I created a process that creates related table entries, but it is clunky. It involves a script, mxd, matching schemas and an auto task. It leverages the multiple entry tool in Collector. It was created to help a small number of field users (maybe 6 specific users that I have worked with closely) enter data more efficiently. Consider this a duct tape and binding wire solution. Having an out of the box solution would be much better.

‎08-04-2020

I created a process that creates related table entries, but it is clunky. It involves a script, mxd, matching schemas and an auto task. It leverages the multiple entry tool in Collector. It was created to help a small number of field users (maybe 6 specific users that I have worked with closely) enter data more efficiently. Consider this a duct tape and binding wire solution. Having an out of the box solution would be much better.

Online Status	Offline
Date Last Visited	‎04-24-2023 10:00 PM

My Ideas

Latest Contributions by DianneMichalak

Re: Attachments in Field Maps submitted but not retained

Re: Attachments in Field Maps submitted but not retained

Re: Attachments in Field Maps submitted but not retained

Re: Attachments in Field Maps submitted but not retained

Attachments in Field Maps submitted but not retained

Re: Add Related/Maintenance Record to All Selected Features

Re: Add Related/Maintenance Record to All Selected Features

Re: Add Related/Maintenance Record to All Selected Features

Re: Add Related/Maintenance Record to All Selected Features

Re: Add Related/Maintenance Record to All Selected Features

Re: Add Related/Maintenance Record to All Selected Features

Re: Attachments in Field Maps submitted but not re...

Re: Attachments in Field Maps submitted but not re...

Attachments in Field Maps submitted but not retain...

Re: Add Related/Maintenance Record to All Selected...

Re: Add Related/Maintenance Record to All Selected...