<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Bulk Editing in Map Viewer Becomes Unusable with Simple GetUser() Expressions – Not Fit for Purpose in ArcGIS Experience Builder Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-experience-builder-questions/bulk-editing-in-map-viewer-becomes-unusable-with/m-p/1713928#M23865</link>
    <description>&lt;DIV&gt;I have a hosted layer participating in a collaboration. Because of the collaboration workflow, standard Editor Tracking is not suitable for our business requirements, so we use a simple Arcade expression in a form field to record the logged-in user&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;GetUser($layer).fullName&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;This is about as simple as a form calculation can get. It doesn't query another layer, use related records, perform spatial analysis, or use any FeatureSet functions.&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;As soon as this expression is present in the form, Map Viewer displays the warning:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;"This form uses functions that limit attribute editing to 50 features."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;If more than 50 features are selected for editing, the workflow becomes restricted.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Through testing, I found that:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Removing the field containing the GetUser() expression removes the warning.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Re-adding the expression immediately brings the warning back.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;No FeatureSetByName(), Filter(), Intersects(), or other expensive functions are involved.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;The only function being used is GetUser($layer).fullName.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;The warning suggests that complex feature queries are responsible for the limitation, but in this case the only logic is retrieving the currently authenticated user.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From a user perspective this makes little sense. A basic audit field that records who performed an update should not disable practical bulk-editing workflows.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;What makes this particularly frustrating is the wider state of bulk editing within the ArcGIS platform.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For years, users relied on Web AppBuilder workflows for efficient editing. Web AppBuilder is now retired/no longer supported, and organizations have been pushed toward Experience Builder and Map Viewer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, the replacement workflows have taken an extremely long time to mature. Bulk editing functionality has arrived slowly, and even now relatively simple form configurations can introduce unexpected restrictions.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The result is that we have:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;A modern editing experience that still limits common operational workflows.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;A warning message that implies complex calculations when the form is only retrieving the current user.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Large-scale editing scenarios that become impractical.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Organizations forced off legacy applications without equivalent editing capabilities being fully mature.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;In local government and utility environments, updating 50 features at a time is not unusual. Recording the responsible editor is also not unusual.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Users should not have to choose between:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Capturing who performed an edit, or&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Performing efficient bulk updates.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;Both should be possible without compromise.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;At present, a form containing nothing more than GetUser($layer).fullName can trigger a restriction that materially affects editing productivity. For organizations managing large datasets, that simply doesn't feel fit for purpose.&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:12:23 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>LarryMcEvoy70</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-07-10T16:12:23Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Bulk Editing in Map Viewer Becomes Unusable with Simple GetUser() Expressions – Not Fit for Purpose</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-experience-builder-questions/bulk-editing-in-map-viewer-becomes-unusable-with/m-p/1713928#M23865</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV&gt;I have a hosted layer participating in a collaboration. Because of the collaboration workflow, standard Editor Tracking is not suitable for our business requirements, so we use a simple Arcade expression in a form field to record the logged-in user&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;GetUser($layer).fullName&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;This is about as simple as a form calculation can get. It doesn't query another layer, use related records, perform spatial analysis, or use any FeatureSet functions.&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;As soon as this expression is present in the form, Map Viewer displays the warning:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;"This form uses functions that limit attribute editing to 50 features."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;If more than 50 features are selected for editing, the workflow becomes restricted.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Through testing, I found that:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Removing the field containing the GetUser() expression removes the warning.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Re-adding the expression immediately brings the warning back.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;No FeatureSetByName(), Filter(), Intersects(), or other expensive functions are involved.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;The only function being used is GetUser($layer).fullName.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;The warning suggests that complex feature queries are responsible for the limitation, but in this case the only logic is retrieving the currently authenticated user.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From a user perspective this makes little sense. A basic audit field that records who performed an update should not disable practical bulk-editing workflows.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;What makes this particularly frustrating is the wider state of bulk editing within the ArcGIS platform.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For years, users relied on Web AppBuilder workflows for efficient editing. Web AppBuilder is now retired/no longer supported, and organizations have been pushed toward Experience Builder and Map Viewer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, the replacement workflows have taken an extremely long time to mature. Bulk editing functionality has arrived slowly, and even now relatively simple form configurations can introduce unexpected restrictions.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The result is that we have:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;A modern editing experience that still limits common operational workflows.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;A warning message that implies complex calculations when the form is only retrieving the current user.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Large-scale editing scenarios that become impractical.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Organizations forced off legacy applications without equivalent editing capabilities being fully mature.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;&lt;P&gt;In local government and utility environments, updating 50 features at a time is not unusual. Recording the responsible editor is also not unusual.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Users should not have to choose between:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Capturing who performed an edit, or&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Performing efficient bulk updates.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;Both should be possible without compromise.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;At present, a form containing nothing more than GetUser($layer).fullName can trigger a restriction that materially affects editing productivity. For organizations managing large datasets, that simply doesn't feel fit for purpose.&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:12:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-experience-builder-questions/bulk-editing-in-map-viewer-becomes-unusable-with/m-p/1713928#M23865</guid>
      <dc:creator>LarryMcEvoy70</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-07-10T16:12:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Bulk Editing in Map Viewer Becomes Unusable with Simple GetUser() Expressions – Not Fit for Purpose</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-experience-builder-questions/bulk-editing-in-map-viewer-becomes-unusable-with/m-p/1713950#M23868</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.esri.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/437577"&gt;@LarryMcEvoy70&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;Thank you for the feedback.&amp;nbsp; We're always looking at increasing any limits we place on editing and this limit is no different.&amp;nbsp; While it remains at 50 features for the recent 2026 Q2 release, it's a limit we consider increasing in each release and we'll reevaluate it again for our next release.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'd suggest logging this Enhancement through Technical Support. That would allow you to track the work.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:59:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-experience-builder-questions/bulk-editing-in-map-viewer-becomes-unusable-with/m-p/1713950#M23868</guid>
      <dc:creator>CraigGillgrass</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-07-10T16:59:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

