Latest Contributions by JayCary

The need to re-publish the service depends on the nature of the change being made to the participating feature class validation attribute rules. For Data Reviewer-based rules, changes that include the use of a new data source (such as the data source of the Features to Compare parameter in the Feature on Feature check) will require re-publishing if that data source is not already included in the service. The same condition would apply when creating a new rule that includes a data source that is not already included in the service (such as including the destination data source when using the Relationship check) . ... View more

A couple of things to check when you encounter this error: Verify that all data sources configured in the validation attribute rules are included in the published service. For example, several check types include additional data sources (such as the Features to Compare data source found in the Feature on Feature check) that must also be included in the published service. Review the server logs (in verbose mode) of your federated server(s) to identify any errors related to Reviewer check executions. Note: The installation of the Data Reviewer SOE is not required when using ArcGIS Pro-based workflows such as Attribute rules. ... View more

I notice that, unlike the tutorial, there was no option to select a study area, and error layers don't line up on the map with the other layers like it did in the tutorial which had a different datum to that of the error layers as well. You may want to check the Transformation settings configured in your map to see if this is the reason the error features are not aligned with the related feature. Here is some additional info on these settings.   After running the Evaluate rules they show up in the Error Inspector without the green pass marks or red error marks. What could be the issue? Were the error features created using a Data Reviewer-based validation rule? If so, the error should include life cycle status information (stored in the Error phase and Error status fields). Errors created using Arcade-based validation rules will not have values in these fields. ... View more

@SarahMcLellan Attribute rule error layers are based on the WGS84 spatial reference. Could you provide some background on how the error features were created? For example, were the error features created by evaluating rules using the Error Inspector or the Evaluate Rules GP tool (in Pro or from a stand-alone script)? ... View more

Unfortunately, the workflow in ArcMap for ensuring that edits correct the error condition is not an automated process as they are Data Reviewer-based validation attribute rules in ArcGIS Pro. In ArcMap, error results must be manually updated to indicate whether they have been fixed or should be marked as an exception. Here is a link to the documentation that outlines the process. A couple of workflows that I've seen customers use: Create a new Reviewer session and re-run the Reviewer batch job or individual check on the edited features and see what errors are returned. Using the existing Reviewer session, re-run the Reviewer batch job or individual check on the selected feature and see if errors are still returned. If no error is returned, then update the correction status as "Resolved". Hope this is helpful! ... View more

The Error Inspector is "generic" pane used to manage error features created when validating data using ArcGIS capabilities such as Topology Rules and Attribute Rules. These errors are stored in a schema that are specific to the capability. The Reviewer Results pane is used to manage error features created when validating data using ArcMap-based automated checks (Reviewer Batch Jobs), visual review tools and automated workflows using the Write to Reviewer Table geoprocessing tool. These errors are stored in a schema that is specific to Data Reviewer. This capability should be considered a legacy workflow to support deployments that contain both ArcMap and ArcGIS Pro clients. Data Reviewer customers are encouraged to migrate their QC workflows to Attribute Rules (and the Error Inspector) when they are ready to move from ArcMap. ... View more

Closed pending further clarification. ... View more

@LauraPhoebusThis is a great question! Regarding licensing, the Methods to implement automated review topic is getting an update in the next release to address licensing requirements for Reviewer-based validation attribute rules. Here is a preview of this update: Consider the following licensing requirements when implementing Reviewer-based attribute rule workflows: A Data Reviewer license for ArcGIS Pro and an ArcGIS Pro Standard or Advanced license are both required to create or modify a Reviewer-based attribute rule. A Data Reviewer license for ArcGIS Pro and an ArcGIS Pro Standard or Advanced license are both required to evaluate a Reviewer-based validation attribute rule in a file or mobile geodatabase. A Data Reviewer license for Enterprise and an ArcGIS Server Standard or Advanced license are both required to evaluate a Reviewer-based validation attribute rule in a branch versioned enterprise geodatabase. Hope this update provides clarity around the licensing requirements. ... View more

Can you share the details of your configuration? For example, the check settings (input filters, dangle tolerance, dangle tolerance unit of measure, additional features to compare) and spatial reference of the input dataset. You may want to also verify that the polylines are actually snapped to another feature and do not have micro-gaps. ... View more

Hi, Depending on your configuration, results from the Must Not Have Dangles topology rule and the Find Dangles check may not be directly comparable. You may want to verify that the Dangle Tolerance parameter makes sense for your data. From the doc: The minimum distance to search for polyline nodes that are not connected to other features. Polyline features with nodes that are within this distance but not connected to other polyline features are returned as an error. The value must be greater than the input data source's x,y tolerance.    Jay ... View more

@ThomasRickettThanks for sharing additional details on the scenario. The Different Z at Intersection check would support this scenario (albeit using Z-enabled features). Unfortunately, I don't think the Feature on Feature (aka Geometry on Geometry in ArcMap) will work. The check can find polyline boundaries that intersect (spatial relation: DE-9IM (****T****), but comparing the attribute pairs (ToElevation <> FromElevation, FromElevation <> ToElevation) would generate false-positive results. ... View more

@AyanPalitAs you mentioned earlier, the Nonlinear Segment check is the best method in Data Reviewer for detecting nonlinear segments in polyline/polygon features. Unfortunately, the current implementation lacks the granularity needed in this scenario. ... View more