idea Name attachments programatically using Field(s) or Arcade Expressions in ArcGIS Field Maps Ideas

Name attachments programatically using Field(s) or Arcade Expressions

AlfredBaldenweck — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:21:17 GMT

Pretty straightforward request:

Right now, attachments in Field Maps are named simply "Attachment 1", "Atttachment 2". This is fine except for when you go to export them and suddenly you have 50 "Attachment 1"s.

What I'd like to see is the option of naming Attachments using a field (or combinations of fields) and Arcade Expressions.

For example,

{Field1}_{Field2}_Attachment1

"Site_" + $feature.SITE_NO + "_Feature_" + $feature.FEAT_NO + $attachmentName //Forgive me, I don't remember how to deal with Attachments in Arcade //so I'm just making it up lol

Survey123 has this option already: Survey123 Tricks of the Trade: Set the file name of photos and signatures (esri.com)

It'd be great to have it in FieldMaps as well.

Re: Name attachments programatically using Field(s) or Arcade Expressions

LindsayRaabe_FPCWA — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:00:43 GMT

100% agree. For this to work in one application but not the other is frustrating.

Re: Name attachments programatically using Field(s) or Arcade Expressions - Status changed to: Closed

SarahSaint-Ruth — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:03:14 GMT

Thank you for submitting your idea. I'm closing as a duplicate of this idea:

Allow attachments to be named and made required similar to survey123

Please add support by adding Kudo or alternatively copying and pasting your description as a comment. Keeping one idea allows us to track the need more effectively.

Re: Name attachments programatically using Field(s) or Arcade Expressions

LindsayRaabe_FPCWA — Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:37:17 GMT

@SarahSaint-Ruth Your URL isn't working so have relinked below.

Allow attachments to be named and made required s... - Esri Community

Re: Name attachments programatically using Field(s) or Arcade Expressions

AlfredBaldenweck — Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:46:10 GMT

Whoops, should have done due diligence. Could this idea be merged into that one instead?