Can't create features when attribute rules are enabled!

[pocalipse]

Hi

I have a very strange exception in my very simple C# code. I'm trying to insert polygon features in a feature class and everything is working perfectly until I create an attribute rules calling a sequence on a field on creation.

What is really strange is the exception since I get an ArcGIS.Core.Data.Exceptions.GeodatabaseEnterpriseException

'A database level I/O error occurred. Reason: Underlying DBMS error [ERROR: Geometry type (MultiPolygon) does not match column type (Polygon) (s100ed6.s101.geoms)::SQLSTATE=22023]'

If I disable the attribute rule everything is working again.

Creating features directly in ArcGIS PRO works perfectly and the sequence is updating the field as expected.

I would really appreciate any feedback on this topic 🙂

Best regards
Jens

[RichRuh]

Hi Jens,

What kind of database are you using? Are you editing in a CoreHost app or a Pro add-in?

Thanks,

--Rich

[pocalipse]

Hi Rich

I'm currently working in a Postgres enterprise database and the code is a CoreHost application. 

My very small code is actually only copying features from another database to this Postgres one and everything is working perfectly - until I enable an attribute rule on one of my fields!

Best regards
Jens

[RichRuh]

If you can post your editing code fragment here, I can see if anything looks weird, but we haven't seen anything like this before, and you may need to submit this to technical support for further analysis.

Sorry I'm not much help.

--Rich

[pocalipse · Accepted solution]

Hi Rich

I'm sorry for my very late reply!

Anyway, my problem is related to the fact that I keen to create my tables and feature classes directly in Postgres and then just use the RegisterTable functionality in ArcGIS PRO. If you do so the attribute rules will fail but if you start from scratch creating your tables and feature classes directly in ArcGIS PRO everything is working.

So everything is actually working but now I'm stuck with an ObjectID attribute and a SHAPE attribute and the idea was to use some other naming specially on the SHAPE field and that is why I started directly in the database.

--Jens 

[RichRuh]

Hi Jens,

Thanks for letting me know- that's interesting information. We can take a look and see if this is something we can support in the future. For now, your work-around is probably the best solution.

--Rich