<?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 Re: Replace Inspection Table Key Relationships in ArcGIS Utility Network Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/replace-inspection-table-key-relationships/m-p/1409232#M3689</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;The constraint is that you can't use object ID based relationships (&lt;A href="https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/3.1/tool-reference/tool-errors-and-warnings/001001-010000/tool-errors-and-warnings-02551-02575-002568.htm" target="_blank"&gt;002568: Branch version relationship classes must not use Object ID for the primary key.—ArcGIS Pro | Documentation&lt;/A&gt;). You are welcome to use any user-defined and maintained field. Many customers prefer to use the global ID field because it is a system-generated and maintained unique identifier.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:58:48 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>RobertKrisher</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-04-12T20:58:48Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Replace Inspection Table Key Relationships</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/replace-inspection-table-key-relationships/m-p/1408723#M3684</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;In the Solution templates, there are related tables for inspections and attachments using the GUID as the primary/foreign key relationship. Does anyone see an issue with recreating these tables using a text field (the assetID) as the relationship? This matches our particular source data.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;BR /&gt;Mike&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:50:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/replace-inspection-table-key-relationships/m-p/1408723#M3684</guid>
      <dc:creator>MichaelParma</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-11T19:50:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Replace Inspection Table Key Relationships</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/replace-inspection-table-key-relationships/m-p/1409075#M3686</link>
      <description>I am traveling, can verify and look it up next week, but I am fairly sure for branch versioned data, a relationship must be global id based.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:36:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/replace-inspection-table-key-relationships/m-p/1409075#M3686</guid>
      <dc:creator>MikeMillerGIS</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-12T16:36:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Replace Inspection Table Key Relationships</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/replace-inspection-table-key-relationships/m-p/1409232#M3689</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The constraint is that you can't use object ID based relationships (&lt;A href="https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/3.1/tool-reference/tool-errors-and-warnings/001001-010000/tool-errors-and-warnings-02551-02575-002568.htm" target="_blank"&gt;002568: Branch version relationship classes must not use Object ID for the primary key.—ArcGIS Pro | Documentation&lt;/A&gt;). You are welcome to use any user-defined and maintained field. Many customers prefer to use the global ID field because it is a system-generated and maintained unique identifier.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 20:58:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-utility-network-questions/replace-inspection-table-key-relationships/m-p/1409232#M3689</guid>
      <dc:creator>RobertKrisher</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-12T20:58:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

