Latest Contributions by SFM_TravisBott

This sure gets old.  I don't know what other software I use that I need to hang on every word of a blog post or I come back and find my products corrupted.  Doubly annoying - the survey preview still honors the old tags, so when you're building a new survey in the old format and testing it it looks fine....until you publish it.  ... View more

Definitely not a dumb question, as you're absolutely right. I didn't even notice the box existed.... Unchecking the box fixes the problem. A few odd things that threw me off, in case somebody else sees this....only shapefiles get generalized. You can have the box checked for any other form of data and it's not generalized. And the generalizing is not just for web display...if the feature is copied over from its generalized form that generalization is preserved.  ... View more

@ZhifangWang Thank you! This works perfectly, and I was quickly able to reference those parent records in a feature report. Seems very simple and makes plenty of sense now that I see it, so thank you for getting me there.  ... View more

@ZhifangWang You have it correct! There are two iterations that I would like, in descending order of importance, as the second I can (sort of) already accomplish. Using your examples: A feature report based on Survey B (1:1 child), that accesses attributes from the parent.  In my case, the parent is a jurisdiction, and the child record is a long status survey that gets updated bit by bit as they move through an inspection process. When the process is complete, I'd like to be able to produce a written report (done mostly from the child record), but also bring in attributes from the parent record, like jurisdiction name, county, personnel responsible, etc, which are all contained in the parent record. This obviously can be accomplished if I just include those attributes in the child table as well, but that seems redundant.  A feature report that groups multiple records from Survey C (1:M child), while accessing information from Survey A (parent) Survey C represents inspection records, and the goal here is to produce reports based on the parent (jurisdiction) that summarize the whole inspection history. In my case this is the easiest to do, as I did not use a GUID to link the records, rather just the name of the jurisdiction, in order to avoid a URL parameter in the mobile app. So I believe I could filter by jurisdiction in the report view on Survey123 and run the report. However, it would be great to be able to work this also as a URL parameter, so field staff could click on their jurisdiction in a map (i.e., the parent record), and produce a report for the whole jurisdiction that accesses both the parent and the collection of child records.  Can we do it? Do we have the technology? ... View more

I will try to clarify my workflow.  Created feature class with my jurisdiction data Created two related tables. One is 1:M, linked via the City fields the other is 1:1, linked via GlobalID field in the parent and the JurisdictionID fields in the related table.  Appended all jurisdictions to 1:1 table (only fields carried over were 'City', 'County', and 'JurisdictionID' sourced from the parent GlobalID field'). So now I have 539 records in feature class, 539 matching records in the 1:1 table, and 0 records in the 1:M table.  Publish feature class to AGOL, which brings the two related tables with it.  Create survey #1 - New survey in Connect, based on feature service. This survey edits the main table for the feature service.  Create survey #2 - New Survey in Connect, based on feature service. In Settings page, change form_id to 1:M related table. Configure survey with fields found in 1:M table.  Create survey #3 - New Survey in Connect, based on feature service. In Settings page, change form_id to 1:1 related table. Configure survey with fields found in 1:1 table.  Open web map with feature service. Configure pop-up. The first URL parameter allows you to edit the core feature service (The first URL in my original post). Configure pop-up for 1:M table (the second URL in my original post). This feeds the form the 'key' field, which in this case is 'City.' This is likely like the plotkey in your example.  This is where I'm stuck - configure pop-up to edit the 1:1 table.  I plan to hand a dashboard to our staff, and I'd like them to be able to edit the core feature service, the 1:M table, and the 1:1 table from the same pop-up. However, I am having a hard time figuring out how to configure the URL to edit the 1:1 table. The mode should be 'edit' since each parent record should have a single related record, right? I could feed it to add a new record, but that's not what I want to do.  This URL  <https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/0b3887da838e453f8da75f66b2e937a1?mode=edit&amp;globalId={GlobalID}> yields this:      ...and this URL <https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/0b3887da838e453f8da75f66b2e937a1?mode=edit&amp;JurisdictionId={GlobalID}> yields this... ...and this URL <https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/0b3887da838e453f8da75f66b2e937a1?mode=edit&amp;globalId={JurisdictionID}> yields he same as above.  What was unclear to me in your workflow was what relationships your related tables had to the parent (1:1 or 1:M). I understand from your post that you do not seem to think you should start from the feature service but I can't really see why not. The workflow seems more or less the same, unless it's in how the relationship is configured. In either case you have a survey and point it towards a new item. The issue here is how to edit a record in a 1:1 related table.    ... View more

Thanks for the response. I will try that. It's a little less clean but I think I can guarantee uniqueness.  ... View more

@mpboyle are you able to actually save edits in the HTML editor in the New Map Viewer? I found your thread because I am trying to update maps to the new viewer and don't seem to have the option to save edits in the HTML mode when configuring pop-ups. I can manipulate the text but the save button is greyed out.  ... View more

Thanks, @CraigWilliams for the tip about the new Map Viewer. I was unaware of that change.  If you're suggesting submitting an Idea in reference to the original post, I don't think one should have to. If the advertised purpose of the language is to move between platforms it should, you know, actually move between platforms. If a layer has a Arcade-formatted labeling expression in Pro it shouldn't be sabotaged once published to AGOL. Just my two cents.  ... View more