Latest Contributions by erica_poisson

Hi @PhilLarkin1  So the URI rest url wasn't correct - it still contained the encoding (%3D). I replaced that with a '=' but still got the error.  I then decided to take your advice and format the HTTP GET query using the Query body. I did not do this to my "updateFeatures" HTTP request inside of my apply to each loop. Is this where you thought I should do it?  This is what I did, the result was the same: erica_tefft_2-1628789735489.png   erica_tefft_0-1628789683769.png     ... View more

@PhilLarkin1 @ToryChristensen  I am running into an issue here and think it has to do with the way my data is formatted...ultimately, I get the error: erica_tefft_2-1628782474066.png For my query parameter, I am using a field that has data formatted in the following way - EQ1234-012.  Each time I test my Flow, it gets to the Parse JSON for the query and returns this: erica_tefft_0-1628782176148.png You can see that the returned value is truncated before the "-012" portion of the attribute value. Because of this, there is no match/no ObjectID to return in my apply to each array. I am not sure how to format the Query to properly return the entire value. I have tried a few iterations... Recommended setup via this blog (screen capture below). Replace the +%3D+ with = Surround EQ_File_Number with single quote Surround EQ_File_Number with double quotes Here is what my query currently looks like.  erica_tefft_1-1628782349779.png Any suggestions on how to resolve this issue?  Thank you! ... View more

Hi @DavidMcClennen , Bummer on no solution, but perhaps I can help you with this: no i  dont have to ensure the people doing the assessing are right in front of the house when they submit the info is related already to the layer. however i'm having trouble creating the form from the layer. i think the relationship class between the table and layer isn't supported or something else... maybe you might have the answer?  When creating a Survey123 form "on top of" an existing hosted feature layer, you need to make sure the relationship class is based on GlobalID. This means that the supportsApplyEditsWithGlobalID is set to true. If that is not the case, and it is based on ObjectID or another unique ID field in the data, you will run into trouble creating the form.  There is info on this here - https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-blog/how-to-enable-supportsapplyeditswithglobalids-on/ba-p/893977 Hopefully I didn't totally miss what you were asking here.  ... View more

Hi @DavidMcClennen - This is way old, but did you ever figure this out? I am having the same problem!  Thanks, ... View more

Hi @GlenShepherd  I did as you suggested w/ the following results: Checked all "properties: overridden" and ensured that all fields showed as "properties: inherited", which they did.  Created a new test view from the original hosted feature layer. All fields were present as they should be.  Used the "Delete from Definition" tool at REST to remove the related table. Once done, all fields were still present, but I couldn't update the pop-up (which was expected).  Attempted to undo my removal of the related table using the same code snippet as above (I wasn't sure what else to use) through the Add to Definition and Update Definition tools at REST. Neither worked - I received an error in both instances. I am not sure if I needed a different code snippet... It seems like this modification just breaks the View's connection back to it's parent hosted feature layer. The weird part is, one of my problem layers (which doesn't have the new field) has not gone through the process to edit the REST definition.... For that layer I checked all fields for "properties: inherited" (they were), removed the AOI, removed the View Definition Filter, removed custom symbology and none of that made the missing field appear.  I feel like my only solution is to re-create the Views.  Thank you for your help. I might connect with technical support again. Ultimately, I feel like if I want to remove related tables in the future, I need to ensure the schema/pop-ups are 100% configured before doing so.  One final question though...at the UC this week, it seemed like the View creation experience will be changing in the future. Will removal of related tables be supported in the new experience? Or will the workflow through REST still need to be used? It would be really great it for public Views a related table could be removed/hidden in some sort of officially supported way. In my example here, our related table tracks unauthorized trail use (e.g. ATVs, vandalism, etc.). This is for internal use only, so we remove the related table from the public View of our trail data inventory.  ... View more

Hi @GlenShepherd  1. I am saying that the new field is not in my attribute table and also cannot be found under "Define Fields" when configuring the View Definition. Oddly enough, the new domains (for other fields) did show up when I followed your steps above for resetting the fields to the source.  2. Yes, I mean that I am unable to "configure pop-up" at all for the View layers that went through the workflow I described in my initial post (point 2). This is what I see now - it basically locks up the View "Visualization" page and I need to refresh or change pages to 'unlock' it again. If I click "OK" or "Cancel" at the bottom, nothing happens.  erica_tefft_0-1626182793288.png   As I mentioned above, I did open a technical support case for this issue and we logged #BUG-000136618. This was done via case number #02707008.  I mentioned that 3 of my Views do not show my new field as an option under "Define Fields" under the View Definition. Two of these Views went through the process to hide/remove the related table, while one did not. So, it seems like I am having an issue with a one "regular view" that I did not do anything strange with, and then also with my 2 "modified views" where I have removed the related table.  I do have another "modified view" (where I removed/hid the related table) that does show the new field.  It makes no sense. Do you recommend I open another technical support case?   ... View more

Hi @Ruth_JiatengXu  Thank you! I just tested the beta build and replied to Zhifang's email. It worked perfectly! I appreciate this very much.  I look forward to this beta build getting released for public use. Erica  ... View more

Hi @GlenShepherd  I've got two questions about this: 1) for your Scenario #1 above, can it take some time for a new field to show up in the Fields view definition for a layer? I've added a new field to my hosted feature layer. There are 6 different Views created from this. 3 out of 6 of these Views had the new field in the "Fields" list when I went to modify the View definition. The other 3 did not; these 3 did have an AOI defined, so I removed that, but the new field still does not show up in the Fields view definition list. Any thoughts? 2) I used the workflow described below to remove/hide the related table from my View layer which resulted in this bug - #BUG-000136618. The solution was provided to me by Esri Customer Care (see below for more details). Now, I am unable to edit my pop-up. Deleting the View in question is not an option because it is used in almost 100 maps. Is there some sort of work around that would allow me to a) edit the pop-up or b) re-order fields? From Esri Customer Care: Go to the admin rest endpoint of your hosted view layer and used the delete from definition tool. We added in the following snippet of json: { "layers": [{ "id": 1, "relationships": [{ "id": 0 }] }] } Once done the hosted view layer no longer shows the related table. Any help would be appreciated, ... View more

Hi Zach, This is something I have tried, and it does work. I have been doing more testing between environments and noticed a few odd behaviors - maybe you have suggestions or know why this happens. When moving a Flow from Dev to Prod, I use the Export package option. I then turn off/disable to Flow in Dev. When I Import and set up the Flow in Prod, it is turned off/disabled. When I turn it on, it also turns on the Flow in Dev. I am unsure if this is expected behavior, or if it is because I have named the Flow the same thing between Dev and Prod. It also resulted in duplicate email notifications when I submitted a test survey. The only way I could think to resolve this was to delete the Dev version. However, I am unsure if this is best practice. Any thoughts? Also, when sharing a Flow with someone, I noticed that the incorrect connections were listed. I use a service account for email generation, but the dialog said it was sharing my named account credentials (which aren't even used in the Flow, although my named account owns/authored the Flow).  Thank you, ... View more

Hi @JamesTedrick , Here are some more details on what I am experiencing: 1. Open Power Automate and create a new Flow for a survey. Build out the Flow's steps and save.  2. Go to my survey and view it's Settings > Webhooks page. The webhook is there with the correct timestamp listed. It's name is just MS-FLOW.  3. Test survey/webhook - it runs as expected.  4. Go back to Power Automate and build a second Flow for the same survey; this Flow does something different. Save it.  5. Go back to my survey, view it's Settings > Webhooks page (refresh it). There is still only one webhook listed, however the timestamp has updated to when I just saved my second flow in step 3. There is still only 1 Flow, with the name MS-FLOW. There is no second flow appearing in the list.  6. Test survey/webhook - it performs the action of the second webhook (step 4) and not the action of the first webhook (step 1).  This behavior started happening in February for me. I've been trying to figure out what has happened, but I haven't changed anything in my workflow for creating webhooks through Power Automate. There has been some behind-the-scenes stuff happening with Office 365 administration in my agency and I am no privy to what they are doing/how they are changing things. I am unsure if that could be part of the reason I am experiencing these problems.  I am happy to do a screen share to show you exactly what I am experiencing. There was also someone else who said they were experiencing this too - I tagged him above in the original post.  Erica  ... View more