Greetings Esri Community,
I hope this post finds you well and that everything is awesome. I'm desperate. I am trying to write a rule that will generate a parcel number and calculate the Name field of the parcel parcel type in the fabric. I created a geodatabase sequence, written the calculation rule as a batch calculation rule, so I can run it manually at the appropriate time via the evaluate rules gp tool, and I get the dreaded 999999 error. This rule works in a file geodatabase, and in a feature service with the just the parcel fc and the validation fcs in the service. Therefore I am confident that expression works. I get the error when I run the evaluate gp tool on the parcel fabric service. Here are the details:
Ok I think that is everything. Thank you in advanced for any help you can provide. We're hoping to implement the pro parcel fabric in the upcoming weeks, and assigning parcel numbers is very important to our workflow. Thank you for everything and have a delightful day.
Sincerely,
Joe Guzi
Greetings @AmirBar-Maor ,
Thank you for your response, and for finally trying the actual workflow I originally posted about. You assume correctly. Please see the original post, the validation capability is checked. In fact, you have to have the Validation Capability Checked when you publish a parcel fabric service. It will not let you publish if that capability is not checked. You can also find from earlier posts and screenshots that I have had the Evaluate Rules GP tool set exactly how you have it.
I tested again following your screenshots. The 'Gotcha' you mentioned, was interesting. I made sure to do that this time. I ran the Evaluate Rules GP tool and got the same error. I have included a new screenshot showing the results.
Thank you for everything and have a delightful day.
Sincerely,
Joe Guzi
@HusseinNasser2Does this bug also potentially affect immediate attribute rules? I've had problems in the past getting rules to work when they are applied to a subtype. But the same rule works fine when applied to the whole feature class. Unfortunately it's inconsistent behavior and I can can't duplicate the issue consistantly.