Latest Contributions by CraigWilliams

Yes the option for this is on the Point symbol callout and is named scale. Specifically you'd want the "Width and height" option: However you'll find it only grows the callout it doesn't shrink it. This is an oversight from how this worked in ArcMap and we'll look into satisfying your case. ... View more

For alignment, you need to use the <ALIGN> tag. See this topic for the supported list of tags and attributes. If you're setting it for all cases you can use stacking options to specify this too. As for the webmap case, text formatting tags are not supported in webmaps at this time. ... View more

We're actively working on this now and it's a near-term road map item. @BranislavBlagojevic - you mentioned another issue in this thread, do you have details on this? ... View more

The primary bottlenecks here are data access and file creation, two things a GPU won't help much with. We also need this process to work well on server class machines without GPUs, so we don't currenly have plans to pursue it. Parallelization of CPU based processing is a valid request, and that is already logged as ENH-000134796. ... View more

Datasets created in ArcGIS 2.x values are not broken. The values for dimension field integer values are the same between 10.x, ArcGIS Pro 2.x, and ArcGIS Pro 3.x dimensions. The CIM enum was incorrect in ArcGIS Pro 2.x though, so in ArcGIS Pro 2.x we converted between old and new integers when writing the field values into dimension feature classes. At ArcGIS 3.0, a breaking change release, we took the time to fix this discrepancy and matched the CIM enum integers to the persisted values. Unfortunately when we did this we missed a logic error in validation of input, which is why Out of Range is being reported. This Out of Range issue will be fixed in ArcGIS Pro 3.1 and we'll look to backport it to a 3.0 patch if possible. ... View more

Console() support was added at ArcGIS Pro 2.7. Additional support for script debugging is under consideration. ... View more

As stated in the other issue. We have no plans to do add this. You cannot delete items from the system styles and this would create an odd mixed experience where some items can be deleted and some cannot. If you really want only your own style items, unreferenced all the system styles and use only your own styles. ... View more

Defining the list of items to show is how we've been thinking about this. You mention it as part of the configuration, but we've been considering it as part of the layer. Maybe the configuration could specify the default for new layers, but there are cases - especially with military symbology - where the use cases vary so widely that it's hard to come up with one sensible default list. ... View more

As noted, conversion of all labeled layers in the map is supported and is the recommended approach. so I'm marking this already offered with an explanation: The process of labeling (and therefore converting labels to annotation) of multiple layers is an optimization problem where the labels from all layers are considered together and placed in coordination with each other. This is a very different concept from a lot of GIS processing that essentially allows multiple inputs / outputs but just processes them one at a time. Since the best results come from labeling the whole map together, we promote this option via "All layers in map". The single layer case is just reserved for small cases where just one layer is desired - with the caveat that it can result in less-desirable placement in some situations. We have no plans to add a mix and match set of options as it quickly becomes complicated - should they be labeled and discarded?, still counted as barriers?, etc. As an alternative you could just turn off labeling for all but those 4 layers and convert them using the "All layers in map" option. ... View more