Remove [Read Only] .aprx lock when the original file is closed

12-06-2021 12:47 PM
Status: Open
Labels (1)
Regular Contributor III

I just made a bunch of edits to a file that I didn't realize I had open twice. I was making my changes in the [Read Only] instance. I closed the original, but still cannot save. I get an error when I try to overwrite. [Read Only] still appears at the top despite this instance being the only place the file is open. It seems I'm going to lose my work, or have to save as a new project, which I'd like to avoid.


I too have had this pain. If you have the Python skills, saving the edited features into a separate feature class and using Search Cursor/Update Cursor combo to find and update matching features is about the only way to avoid manually digitizing. 

This shouldn't still be a thing. Years ago (before O365) Microsoft Office products would tell you when you were in a Read Only session and offer you the option to be notified when the current edited version was closed so you could transition into an edit session without losing your work. It would be really nice if esri would look into this as an option.


@RandyCasey, oy. I wound up deleting my changes and re-doing the work, but I wasn't happy about it. I should have said edits to symbology and layout - I wasn't editing any feature classes. But yes, even Office products do this, and other Esri files such as feature classes are 'smart' about their locks in this way.


I'm sorry that you had to re-do work.  As a workaround, couldn't you use the Save As a new project option that you mentioned in the idea's opening description?

Save the copy into the original project's same folder with project_new.  Then either delete the first project (or rename that project_old) and update the copy's name to project.aprx.  

For example, here is the project copy after I've deleted the original (outdated) aprx.


After removing _new I have the original structure and naming and have kept any changes that were made in the Read-Only copy rather than having to re-do those.


The idea is valid, but I wanted to share this as a workaround that might help.




@KoryKramer  I'll have to remember that workaround for next time (though I'm hoping I don't have a next time!). If I were using ArcMap, I would have that without question. The structure of a Pro project, files and all (and my lack of knowledge about all the nuts and bolts), had me scared that that would break something. In other words, I didn't know that was possible without a total renaming/reconnecting.