Containment rules removed from Electric Expanded Asset Package

[streamside]

I recently revised my utility network build from an older version of the electric expanded asset package to the latest solutions download.  The previous version had 128 rules for ElectricLine to EdgeObject for containment.  The current asset package only has 4 rules, so my new build has a couple hundred thousand "34: Feature or object in unsupported containment relationship." errors.

Was it intentional to remove these rules, if so what is the context for doing so?

[MikeMillerGIS]

Can you share the difference.  Which EO are no longer supported in the containment relationship?

[streamside]

Here are the four rules available in the Electric Expanded Asset package March 2026 version (latest download on Solutions site)

Here is a snippet of the same query on B_Rules in an asset package that was downloaded in 2025.  I am mostly interested in the MV OH and UG rules as my original builds did not error on the associations because these rules existed.  

Here is the version of the older ap:

When I try to sync c_ tables with the rules copied from the old package to the new, I get this error:

So looks like the asset groups changed, for example, from Aerial Bare to Cable - Aerial Bare and the rules didn't get updated.

[MikeMillerGIS]

In the 4.0 (Jul 2025) release, we moved contained objects for Conductor details to a related table to leverage the new capabilities of Export Subnetwork.  We removed the rules to the EO and JO as part of this.  You can leverage the Summarize Utility Network tool in the Utility Data Management Support tools to generate the rules you would need to add back.

[streamside]

A couple things.....if the rules were intentionally removed, why are there four remaining rules including MV Underground Three Phase to Cable Aerial Bare, when single phase for example, no longer exists?

Are you able to provide more detailed documentation on the Conductor Details change and intention, including the new capabilities of Export Subnetwork, do I need to re-assess how I am migrating data, for example?  I am aware of this change but have not found any documentation of the usage and assumed it plays a small role until Export Subnetwork is needed.  At the point in my build that I am at now, there are too many errors to utilize Export Subnetwork so have paid little attention to this ConductorDetails change.  However, a relationship is how our current schema is setup now, conductor details are in a related table, but I am migrating them to EdgeObject for the un build.  Should these records instead be migrated to ConductorDetails without associations?

[MikeMillerGIS]

A couple things.....if the rules were intentionally removed, why are there four remaining rules including MV Underground Three Phase to Cable Aerial Bare, when single phase for example, no longer exists?

 - I am not sure, looks to be mistake and they should have been removed with the others

Are you able to provide more detailed documentation on the Conductor Details change and intention, including the new capabilities of Export Subnetwork,

 - https://doc.esri.com/en/arcgis-pro/latest/tool-reference/utility-networks/export-subnetwork.html?tab...

 - Look for Related Record Fields

do I need to re-assess how I am migrating data,

- That is up to you.  We left the existing Edge and Junction objects as moving to related objects is not a 1:1 in functionality.  Such as related objects will not get subnetwork name.  If you have a process that works, do not change for a model update.

Should these records instead be migrated to ConductorDetails without associations?

- There are advantages as we are reducing the number of records and associations in the UN which can improve performance.  But there are trade offs.