Add Geoprocessing from History as a Task Step

[ZachBodenner]

Oftentimes I do a lot of testing in order to work out how to structure a task. This means running a bunch of geoprocessing tools with slightly different parameters, outputs, etc. These tool runs are saved in History, but it would be great if I could grab that history item GP tool with the inputs/outputs/parameters saved there, and add it directly to a task without having to recreate everything in the task builder. 

Something like that little mock up, though I'm sure how the mechanics of doing so would work.

[AmirBar-Maor]

@ZachBodenner 

Interesting idea!

Would you expect the parameters to be populated or not?

Would you expect the tool to be embedded?

Or should we pop up a dialog to let the task designer make those decisions?

For this to work, and the command to be enabled, does task designer has to be open and a step be selected in a task?

[ZachBodenner]

I'm usually in favor of flexibility when available, so my knee-jerk reaction is to say give the user the options. I think ideally you'd at least want to parameters to populate, because otherwise you'd pretty much be adding the tool on its own, which you can already do.

As to the last question, I don't know what this would look like from a coding/programming perspective, but if the lift isn't too great, I would think that have the right-click command grayed out when you don't have a task designer open would be appropriate. Then a person who hasn't encountered or read about this feature would be able to see that's a thing, but it would edit-protect tasks against mis-clicks. I also think that the most intuitive thing would be having the user be required to create a step in the tasks, and then the command is more like "add tool as task step action" or something to that effect.

[DanLee]

I agree with @AmirBar-Maor .  This is definitely an interesting idea! @ZachBodenner 

I wonder if you would also like to be able to add multiple processes from Gp History to Task designer, with the parameters populated, so you don't have to add them one by one.

[ZachBodenner]

@DanLee put it this way, right now there isn't anything, so if it's within ESRI's ability to give, I can't imagine more would be a bad thing!

[DanLee]

 ZachBodenner Thanks for your comment. I hear you!