Hiding Partial Match for Contingent Values

406
3
Jump to solution
11-17-2022 01:32 PM
Labels (1)
RebeccaColeman1
New Contributor

Hello, all! I've been asked to hide partial matches for contingent values. Anyone know if this is possible? Thanks!

0 Kudos
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
VinceE
by
Occasional Contributor II

Can you expand on what you mean by this, and what you are trying to accomplish? At face value, I'm not sure the request you've been given makes sense.

For simplicity, let's say the following are the only two Contingent Value groups allowable for a feature class with four fields:

VinceE_0-1668727079502.png

Now let's say I enter in a record for a Crosstrek, Premium, Standard, Red (which is valid). What if I decide I want a CVT, instead of a Standard transmission? There would be no possible way to do that without the partial match option, because selecting CVT is NOT ALLOWABLE with the Premium Trim or the color Red. BUT, the CVT is allowable for the car itself, so it's a "partial match."

VinceE_1-1668727150523.png

By selecting CVT, it will either surround the other fields in a red box when they become invalid, or, in this case, default to the ONLY allowable options for the other fields.

VinceE_2-1668727338070.png

Basically, I suppose you could eliminate the "partial match" option, but if you got too far into a specific set of values, there would be no way to change anything without erasing the entire record and starting over, because there may ONLY be partial matches available (as in the case above). So, if my understanding of your situation and the way Contingent Values are implemented, it is not possible to do this, and it also would not make sense to simply from a data editing/modifying standpoint.

If you want to ensure a specific order of values are entered correctly the first time, and if a user makes a mistake, they have to start the record over entirely, you may need to look into successive Attribute Rule Constraints.

View solution in original post

0 Kudos
3 Replies
VinceE
by
Occasional Contributor II

Can you expand on what you mean by this, and what you are trying to accomplish? At face value, I'm not sure the request you've been given makes sense.

For simplicity, let's say the following are the only two Contingent Value groups allowable for a feature class with four fields:

VinceE_0-1668727079502.png

Now let's say I enter in a record for a Crosstrek, Premium, Standard, Red (which is valid). What if I decide I want a CVT, instead of a Standard transmission? There would be no possible way to do that without the partial match option, because selecting CVT is NOT ALLOWABLE with the Premium Trim or the color Red. BUT, the CVT is allowable for the car itself, so it's a "partial match."

VinceE_1-1668727150523.png

By selecting CVT, it will either surround the other fields in a red box when they become invalid, or, in this case, default to the ONLY allowable options for the other fields.

VinceE_2-1668727338070.png

Basically, I suppose you could eliminate the "partial match" option, but if you got too far into a specific set of values, there would be no way to change anything without erasing the entire record and starting over, because there may ONLY be partial matches available (as in the case above). So, if my understanding of your situation and the way Contingent Values are implemented, it is not possible to do this, and it also would not make sense to simply from a data editing/modifying standpoint.

If you want to ensure a specific order of values are entered correctly the first time, and if a user makes a mistake, they have to start the record over entirely, you may need to look into successive Attribute Rule Constraints.

0 Kudos
RebeccaColeman1
New Contributor

Thank you for your response. That's very helpful. You described the request to a T "If you want to ensure a specific order of values are entered correctly the first time, and if a user makes a mistake, they have to start the record over entirely, you may need to look into successive Attribute Rule Constraints."

 
Using your example, my GIS user does not want to allow CVT as an option even if it allowable for the car itself. The attribute rules is  something we've never used, but it sounds like we need to look into it for his project.
0 Kudos
VinceE
by
Occasional Contributor II

Attribute Rules may be what you need, but without seeing an example of your field schema and an example of your intended inputs, it's hard to say for sure.

0 Kudos