ArcGIS Pro 3.0.1: The “unique field value” ready to use validation attribute rules fails to identify the error,
In the screenshot below, the “unique field value” ready to use validation attribute rules fails to identify the streets that have #3 despite the fact that the “evaluate rules” is performed
What could be the issue here?
Solved! Go to Solution.
Hi,
The Unique Field Value check appears to be working as expected (ArcGIS Pro 3.0.1) when used with the sample data (Z91.zip).
Note: The data contained in Z91.zip does not appear to be the same as that depicted in the above screenshot. For example, the AlTirahStreets feature class contained only one rule (New Duplicate Feature Rule) and the features with duplicate STREETNUMBER values are different.
I completed the following steps to verify that the check is correctly ignoring the VALIDATIONSTATUS field during evaluation:
If your results are different, I would suggest contacting technical support for additional troubleshooting.
Thanks!
Is this still an issue you are seeing with the Unique Field Value check?
If so, you may want to verify whether these features require validation or not. This information can be found in the validation status field.
It gets worse. The validation attribute rule fails to detect the “unique field value rule” as per the screenshot below (the data is attached)
What could be the issue here? is this a bug?
Hi,
The Unique Field Value check appears to be working as expected (ArcGIS Pro 3.0.1) when used with the sample data (Z91.zip).
Note: The data contained in Z91.zip does not appear to be the same as that depicted in the above screenshot. For example, the AlTirahStreets feature class contained only one rule (New Duplicate Feature Rule) and the features with duplicate STREETNUMBER values are different.
I completed the following steps to verify that the check is correctly ignoring the VALIDATIONSTATUS field during evaluation:
If your results are different, I would suggest contacting technical support for additional troubleshooting.
Thanks!
Thank you for the elaboration and very detailed answer. It appears to work fine with me