Edit Records from Data Reviewer Session in ArcGIS Pro

[LisaBrimhall1]

Hello,

In ArcGIS Desktop, Data Reviewer supports the ability to edit records in a session. This isn't currently available in Pro.

We find this ability valuable - we delete/edit records in a few different scenarios:

• When creating additional feedback during QC - We run batch jobs as part of the QC process, but also create additional records manually for the analyst to review. Sometimes we make mistakes and need to edit or remove manual records.
• Sometimes analysts make mistakes when working through a list of errors and would like to edit the Status or Correction Notes. If they can’t edit, they may delete a record, rerun the batch, and update the Status/Correction Notes again.
• We have a process that writes exceptions from a given session to an exception table (so they won’t pop-up in every job), but we don’t want all exceptions to be written. So in that case we delete those records prior to running the process.
• And finally, sometimes when testing checks, we write results to a table since it can be easier to work with them. If you get incorrect results, it’s easier to delete them than getting stuck with a table full of stuff you don’t want or having multiple reviewer sessions.

[JayCary]

@LisaBrimhall1 Thanks for the feedback!

Quick question: Are you suggesting that you would like to be able to delete error features created using Attribute (validation) rules or created using a Reviewer Batch Job?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

[LisaBrimhall1]

Hi Jay,

Since at some point we'll be moving to attribute rules, we'd like that ability there.

Thanks, Lisa

[JayCary]

Thanks for the feedback

When creating additional feedback during QC - We run batch jobs as part of the QC process, but also create additional records manually for the analyst to review. Sometimes we make mistakes and need to edit or remove manual records.

Support for creation/management of error features identified through semi-automated workflows (such as visual review) are on the product roadmap. It is envisioned that error features created in these workflows will require manual update to their life cycle fields (Correction technician/notes, Verification technician/notes).

Sometimes analysts make mistakes when working through a list of errors and would like to edit the Status or Correction Notes. If they can’t edit, they may delete a record, rerun the batch, and update the Status/Correction Notes again.

In validation attribute rule workflows, error features created using Data Reviewer checks are automatically updated to reflect their current phase and status. For example, once the error condition has been addressed the next time the feature is evaluated the related error feature(s) are automatically updated. You can see this behavior in action in this video (starting @ 12:30)

We have a process that writes exceptions from a given session to an exception table (so they won’t pop-up in every job), but we don’t want all exceptions to be written. So in that case we delete those records prior to running the process.

This may not be an issue in validation attribute rule workflows. The error management "overhead" is significantly reduced since the error tables are system managed and maintain a 1:1 relationship between rule errors and features. This eliminates the need to manually manage rule exceptions and prevents the creation of duplicate errors. That said, in branch-versioned environments editors will need to reconcile/post errors to the default version to ensure that errors which are marked as exceptions are available to other named versions.

And finally, sometimes when testing checks, we write results to a table since it can be easier to work with them. If you get incorrect results, it’s easier to delete them than getting stuck with a table full of stuff you don’t want or having multiple reviewer sessions.

This also may not be an issue in validation attribute rule workflows. When a validation rule is deleted all corresponding errors are automatically removed from the error tables.

[JayCary]

To all,

Would appreciate additional feedback on this idea as it relates to Attribute rule-based workflows.