idea A more unified attachments/relationship class behaviour in Data Management Ideas

A more unified attachments/relationship class behaviour

StedinNetbeheer_B_V_ — Wed, 17 Aug 2022 04:16:58 GMT

Why can't we choose 1:1 for attachments, while we can do this for relations ship classes ?

In the current situation I cannot file a photo with its metadata (i.e. what the photo is about).

either I create a table with attachments (but then my users are allowed to add multiple photos to a single record)

or I can create a table with attachments, delete the relationshipclass and re-create it in 1:1 mode,

only to find that you are no longer given the option to add an attachment.

That this simple requirement (collect a photo with its metadata) is not possible infuriates me.

Our case is that we want to store photo's of a technical installation, documenting several

parts on several photo's. Hnece the need to record metadata (i.e what it is about) per photo.

Survey123 seems to fit the bill functionally but storing the data locally and/or getting it's data into our processes is a nightmare, so that one is not feasible as well.

*not holding my breath*

Regards,

Ronald van Aalst

Re: A more unified attachments/relationship class behaviour

ScottPrindle — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 21:48:42 GMT

Hello Ronald,

Thank you for submitting this idea! When you say Survey123 seems to fit the bill, do you mean the ability to collect repeats and photo questions in your survey? What kind of metadata is required per photo in the workflow you've described in the above idea?

When voting for this idea, please consider providing your own use case and how this functionality would benefit your workflows.

Thanks,

Scott

Re: A more unified attachments/relationship class behaviour - Status changed to: Closed

SSWoodward — Thu, 30 Mar 2023 19:27:27 GMT