Latest Contributions by HusseinNasser2

Hey Carlos   Do you know version of Pro are you using for this (and is this filegdb or mobilegdb?) Is this a relationship? or something you maintain manually    if it is relationship we have fixed few bugs with attribute rules eventing and patched them to 2.9.10/3.0.6 and 3.1.3 make sure you are using those. I'm attaching a sample for insert/update and delete. This is a pole feature that is related to an inspection table. (one pole has many inspections), every time you add an inspection record the count of inspections (a field on the pole) gets updated. if you delete it gets updated accordingly,  this only work with the fixes in the patches mentioned.    ... View more

Hey Kade, this bug is a known issue that has been fixed in 11.1 and ported back to 10.9.1 Patch 5 (ArcGIS Server 10.9.1 Utility Network and Data Management Patch 5) Can you try on those platforms if possible? If you feel this need to be ported back to 11.0 you may contact support and request a hotfix  bug reference BUG-000160904 thanks ... View more

certainly!    c is a variable, and when we say c++ this translate to add 1 to the value of c  this whole thing is for us to start building a payload  so essentially each tree gets its own payload  tree 0 -> payload 0 tree 1-> payload 1  etc... and so on..           ... View more

it is as @JohannesLindner suggested,   one thing I would add for performance reason, remove the count query, you are essentially executing two queries, replace it with this  var relationship = FeatureSetByRelationshipName($feature, 'RelationshipName', ['TreeSpecies'], false); // check size of FeatureSet, return null if empty //if(Count(relationship) == 0) { return null } var f = First(relationship); if (f == null) return null; //if no features exist quit.. return f.TreeSpecies ... View more

The easiest way is to set the rule to execute on Insert, and then change the split-policy on the line to delete-insert-insert. This way when you do a split, what will really happen is 3 events   The original long line will be deleted. (if you have a delete AR it will trigger here) the first segment will be inserted (to the left anchor) and attribute rule will be triggered  the second segment will be inserted (to the right of the split anchor) and attribute rules will be triggered on insert all attributes are preserved from the original line (essentially duplicated)    you can handle the same thing with the existing split policy (update insert) its just little harder. you can change the split policy from the properties of the class.  ... View more

One way is to make an make a change to a batch calculation rule (e.g. add a comment), this will reset all batch calculation validationstatus.  The other way to edit to the features  (any field will reset the validationstatus) ... View more

This bug can be tracked here BUG-000158046 it was fixed and ported to 2.9.10 and will be addressed in 3.1 and 3.0 patches ... View more

Thanks Gregory for sharing this, anytime you find something doesn't make sense please do let us know.  There is sure a bug here, if this is the code you are using. I expect the order matter when you have an early exist (like a check with a return) where the rest of the code won't be checked even if it has a bug. But that doesn't seem to be the case for your code Can you share what Pro were you using? what database platform is it on (enterprise ( if yes is it oracle/sqlserver etc.. ) or filegdb/mobile etc) and maybe the schema of your class? an XML export with no data is sufficient.  that will help us narrow down the cause. one more thing , make sure to use haskey to check the dictionary pipeGradeDict otherwise you will get a field not found error when the value isn't part of the dictionary.  Keep in mind the arcade validation uses the first row in the table as a candidate for validation, if table is empty, we create a dummy row with default values initialized for validation.  the string type expected error can only happen if you are passing a number as the key where a string is expected.    p.s. I couldn't reproduce with 3.1 , 3.0 or 2.9.10 when I move the line up t & d validation just works, yet again I created my own table with your fields there might be more to your specific Pro/dbms schema and data.  ... View more

correct, the error layer points to the error table.  ... View more

not pretty, but you can delete the rule that the error points to and that should delete all the error features, you can simply just recreate the rule again. Careful that this also deletes all error features not just orphaned ones.    I think disable/enable also does the same thing (I might be wrong) ... View more

That is correct, when you modify a validation or batch calculation rule, all rows in that table will reset its validationStatus (a field we use to know what to pick up during evaluation) to "dirty" which means mark them as require validation or calculation depending on what rules you have.   The next evaluation will pick all the rows and either generate more errors or remove the existing errors if they are not longer valid. For example: You have a table with 10 rows and validation rule that return false. (which means all rows are errors) you run evaluate and now you get 10 error features. and all 10 rows says clean (no require validation). If you evaluate again it no-ops and no rows are evaluated. (performance thing) If you change the validation to return true, we touch all 10 rows to make them require validation. so each row will be evaluated and the row errors will be deleted because the rule evaluate to true. you will end up with no errors and 10 rows that require no evaluation.  ... View more