Think I've found a bug
To my understanding this arguement should recalculate my quantiles based on the new data, but it just uses the same classes from the source Symbology Layer.
Here are my inputs:
Once I've run the tool as per above, here are results:
Note, exactly the same break points... not what it is supposed to do... which is"
Anyone got ideas? Thanks.
although indicated as optional, are your symbology_fields matched? because if they aren't then I don't think anything will update
hmmm, this ... from the link... suggests otherwise, but I have nothing to test with, nor can I find a bug notice.
You can choose to maintain or update the symbology via the Update Symbology Ranges by Data parameter, or leave the default. By default, symbology methods can be dynamic; for example, the symbology is updated to reflect the characteristics of the input layer as shown below. The five-class Natural Breaks classification method from the symbology layer is applied to the input layer, and the range values are updated to reflect the Shape_Area values of the input layer.
I've managed to attach my .lyrx file but can't attach my rasters - it keep saying they are too big, but they're tiny!
Not sure what the go is there.
Anyway, Raster 1 has min value 0, max value 136
Raster 2 has min value 0, max value 232
Doesn't seem to matter if it's quantile or natural breaks, it won't update to reflect underlaying data.
I was aware I could do that, so I guess my question really is shouldn't the tool be updating the ranges for me?
I need to create and save these layers automatically, I didn't want to have to open and manually update each one...
Help for tool says:
"You can choose to maintain or update the symbology via the Update Symbology Ranges by Data parameter, or leave the default."
"Classified value rendering to a raster
Am I wrong in my interpretation?
I am not sure that the interpretation is wrong... since it doesn't automagically update. Perhaps that is a 'code' thing for scripting, but it sure doesn't work when you apply the symbology as we did since the recalculate had to be applied... hardly magical... so this might be a question for the Pro Pros...
off to you KKramer-esristaff have we misinterpreted? Is this a bug? or just not a fully implemented as expected description?