There is an either/or, catch-22 thing happening with the Join Field, Add Join, and Join Features tool. It creates inconsistencies between similar tools. Suggested enhancement(s) below.
Use Case: The user wants to table join two feature classes based on a common field and only include the fields needed from the join table. The desired output is a new feature class.
Hi Cole Andrews Thank you for submitting this idea!
I understand what you're describing, so any/all of the requested changed could be valid.
For your stated "Use Case: The user wants to table join two feature classes based on a common field and only include the fields needed from the join table. The desired output is a new feature class."
Since both the join and export honor field visibility, it looks like easiest thing to do would be to only display the desired fields in the join table - that way when the add join is performed, while all of the table's fields are available, only those that were Visible in the join table, remain visible in the target table.
Because that visibility is maintained, when you export the target table, by default, the non-visible fields are not included in the exported table. Any joined fields are accessible through the field mapper, but if not visible will not be included in the output.
Kory Kramer- Thanks for the response. This makes sense and is a convenient way to handle the field mappings from within the map view, working with the data interactively.
In my case, I was/am building a model, so I believe I would have to create a "layer" in model builder in order to manage the displayed fields as you suggested (one of many options). Due to this being an extra step(s), I do still think the idea is valid to add field mapping and/or export options to the table join tools, and should be considered
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.