ArcGIS Pro 3.0.1: How to sort ascending\descending the fields of the “error inspector” window when working with validation attribute rules?
For example, in the screenshot below, I couldn’t figure out how to sort the “error message” field ascending\descending
Solved! Go to Solution.
Thanks Jamal, this is a known limit in how the error table handles the topology errors being split into 3 separate tables with different geometry types (for point, line and polygon errors). At present, as these are 3 different tables but otherwise have the same schema (other than the difference in the shape field type), we present the errors all together but sorting involves sorting all three tables and then merging them appropriately. While this normally isn't too bad we worry about performance / memory problems with large error tables. More work needs to be done internally to support this (or work arounds to sidestep the underlying issues). As such we have not yet been able to provide field sorting of this table (although we certainly recognize the usefulness). Unfortunately this is a case where the implementation is more involved than we would like and thus this work has taken a backseat to other enhancements. Certainly, as demand drives we will continue to investigate solutions.
Thanks Jamal, this is a known limit in how the error table handles the topology errors being split into 3 separate tables with different geometry types (for point, line and polygon errors). At present, as these are 3 different tables but otherwise have the same schema (other than the difference in the shape field type), we present the errors all together but sorting involves sorting all three tables and then merging them appropriately. While this normally isn't too bad we worry about performance / memory problems with large error tables. More work needs to be done internally to support this (or work arounds to sidestep the underlying issues). As such we have not yet been able to provide field sorting of this table (although we certainly recognize the usefulness). Unfortunately this is a case where the implementation is more involved than we would like and thus this work has taken a backseat to other enhancements. Certainly, as demand drives we will continue to investigate solutions.
Thank you for the informative answer.
Best
Jamal
@JamalNUMAN and others who find this thread, see the following idea requesting this functionality and add your kudos to show your support https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-pro-ideas/arcgis-pro-topology-error-inspector-sort-headers/idi-...
Thank you