Latest Contributions by RobBlash

Re-test it with fonts embedded (File>Options>Save, scroll to the bottom and check the embed font option and uncheck the other 2 related options (see my screen shot). I've gotten into this habit because the report previews do not render correctly without this option checked. @Ruth_JiatengXu  can you confirm Esri has tested this fix with and without embedded fonts in the report template?   ... View more

Can't this be scheduled sooner?  This is a big inconvenience. My company exports 100s of feature reports daily and they all include check boxes. ... View more

Already on it, thanks ... View more

Confirming I'm seeing the same behavior so this is not an isolated issue. The docx -> pdf is the workaround for now, but not ideal since it involves additional work for my team. ... View more

I meant to put in a support ticket yesterday, but the day got away from me on other pressing issues. The FGDB export via survey123.com never completed, and exports via my retired desktop python scripts also never completed. However, my notebooks ran as expected last night. So maybe something on services9 fixed itself, or Esri found the problem via other means and resolved it. We'll see what Monday brings. ... View more

I like the deprecation flag as a control for the replacement items. Great idea! ... View more

With the upcoming retirement of web app builder, we need a robust way to redirect existing web app URLs to their replacement experience builder apps. The redirect needs to happen in the app itself, and not at the item page. For a public facing web app, that just doesn't get the job done. ... View more

Fields are not in a repeat. The site would accept the syntax for ${if field1 != field2} (no errors) but it didn’t actually produce the expected result when exporting a sample report. I think the other 2 options threw a syntax error when trying to upload the template.  Thanks for the reply, in the end I updated the survey to eliminate the duplicate values and put a static “NA” in field 2 that I can easily query for in the report template.  ... View more

BUG-000177504 was fixed lats night FYI, I'm seeing the expected behavior using fields for naming with repeats containing images. ... View more

The bug isn't showing up in the support search, but it was specifically for the scenario I mentioned above.  The bug was fixed last night, give it another shot. I'd open a support ticket otherwise, since there could have been multiple issues (we're seeing something with domains too in reports).   ... View more

It's a know bug. The issue is using fields in your report name, and your survey contains a repeat with an image question. BUG-000177504 ... View more

@Scott_Harris I’m aware of the option to clear the field mappings, but this posss 3 problems: In a project that had many layers, there will be many combinations of source and target fields to clear. this is not time efficient.  This also requires users to take extra steps to disable many possible outcomes that are unwanted, versus requiring a user to configure the specific outcome that they do want.  And finally, if I’m understanding the field mapping correctly, clearing all existing field mappings will cause subsequent copy paste operations to exclude attributes.  ... View more

@JenniferCadkin thanks for the additional insight on the tool. I strongly believe that automatically filling the field mapping matrix with all column/layer combinations across a project is a huge source of the trouble that folks are having with the attribute transfer tool. Put bluntly, this is wildly different than the behavior in ArcMap, and seems to cause a lot of frustration from seasoned users. I also do not think this makes Pro any easier for novice users, because they are likely unaware of the potential pitfalls this introduces. Either way, there’s massive risk for data corruption for seasoned and novice users alike when everything is “on” by default for attribute transfers.  I’ll use this as a shameless opportunity to plug my idea for a separate field mapping for attribute transfers https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-pro-ideas/create-a-separate-field-mapping-for-the-attribute/idi-p/1617440/jump-to/first-unread-message Thinking through it further, it may make more sense to confine field mapping to the attribute transfer tool alone (like it was in Arc Map) and only enable those mappings that are specifically turned on by the users. I also struggle to see the use case for field mapping in any other tools. For a copy/paste operation it’s intuitive for any common fields between the source and target to come across. IMO that’s expected in a “copy”. For any data moving operations where you only want to carry across specific fields, or you want source.A column to populate target.B column, the append tool has pretty powerful field mapping capabilities to handle the process. In short, I think the project-wide field mapping in Pro is trying to solve a problem that does not exist, with the added expense of introducing a whole host of other problems for tools such as attribute transfers    ... View more