Can a table belong to multiple Relationship Classes?

WarrenMedernach · ‎05-11-2015

Hello all,

I have a point feature class (FC_a) and a table (TBL_a) participating in a relationship class. The relationship is a 1:M relationship where a single point in FC_a relates to multiple records in TBL_a. The relationship is setup using GlobalIDs so that we can enable offline data collection with Collector and this is working perfect, and it's great to be able to collect related data offline!

I have another feature class (FC_b) that contains subtlety different point information, but, it requires the exact same related data.

My question is, can I simply create another relationship class between FC_b and TBL_a? Because the relationships are based on GlobalIDs, I'm thinking this should be possible? I'm going to setup a test environment to test this out but thought I would ask the question...

Thanks for any insight/suggestions.

Warren

SepheFox · ‎05-11-2015

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any issue, in fact, I can think of many examples where this would be necessary. I'm curious to know ow it works out in your test environment though, so lease do report back.

WarrenMedernach · ‎05-12-2015

Well, so close, but so far...

All was looking very good. I tested the data in desktop, everything worked great. Built an AGOL map and opened in Collector, added a new related record to a feature, perfect. Tried to download the map and take it offline, not so good. The following message appeared:

The map failed to download

The map 'map name' failed to download with the message: Failed to create replica. Multiple layers are referencing a dataset, which is not supported.

So it appears the offline capabilities do not currently support this. Can anybody else confirm this?

KeithMortensen · ‎06-04-2015

I am also trying to attempt this for checkout through arcpad. So far the check out only recognizes the first relate in the TOC. Should I be working with Many to many relationship classes? end of tha day and Im kinda melted....

KerryShakarjian · ‎10-15-2015

Anything else come out of this beside the AGOL issues?

Did you get the official dataset to work properly prior to AGOL? It seems like it but enough time has gone by since the original post that maybe a new discovery has occurred??

I'm currently doing the same thing, multiple feature classes to one table, but not taking if offline but if it worked offline as you both were trying, I might consider that as well.

Thanks!

SethLewis1 · ‎10-16-2015

Kerry,

I looked around and came across this thread: Offline multiple layers

From looking at Warren's posts from May it would seem that if one is using two feature classes with relationships to the same table then the fcs may need to be published as separate Feature Services to get around the error message/limitation.

WarrenMedernach · ‎10-16-2015

Hi Kerry, Seth,

Sorry for the delayed response.

The configuration described above seemed to work fine in a connected environment. It was only in a disconnected environment that the GUIDs for the relates were not getting populated properly. I am still working with ESRI tech support on this, and they provided some additional information for me to test, but I've been swamped and haven't been able to get to it yet. I'm heading out of town for next week, so it likely won't be until the following week before I can adjust my test environment with the info provided.

I will report back when I have more info.

Warren

Here is some details I provided to ESRI:

Just reporting back on this with some updated information as I finally had some time to look into this further, and here's is what I have and what I've found.

Feature Class A (GlobalIDs)

Feature Class B (GlobalIDs)

RelatedTable (GUID & GlobalIDs)

GlobalIDs were required as well on the RelatedTable to be able to publish the service and enable Sync

Relationship Class A = Feature Class A > RelatedTable (FC A GlobalID to GUID)

Relationship Class B = Feature Class B > RelatedTable (FC B GlobalID to GUID)

The relationships work perfectly in ArcMap and in Collector when connected. However, when disconnected the sync process is not generating the GUIDs in the RelatedTable so the records end up being orphaned the RelatedTable.