Latest Contributions by BrittneyGibbons1

We are also experiencing this issue, which caused loss of data over several weeks on multiple projects and will require revisiting sites that were previously inspected to recapture the missing data. Why was the numbers appearance left as an option with such severe problems or why wasn't the issue made more visible? From what I can tell, this has been an open issue since 2017 (Numbers data missing from upload ). It makes no sense that this was left in as an option when it has been known to cause unrecoverable data loss for years and there is no estimated timeline for a solution. It is also a non-essential feature that we included for convenience, but that would not have severely impacted the workflow if we left it out.  This is an extremely severe bug and makes me question if we should continue using Survey123 if it is not reliable for storing the data that was collected in the field. At the very least, there should be a tab in Connect with a list of known bugs so that people creating forms can keep on top of known issues without having to search through a bunch of blog or discussion posts. This bug does not appear in the list of known issues (Known issues—Survey123 for ArcGIS | ArcGIS ) and I could not figure out how to navigate to the list of known bugs in Survey123. This makes us look unprofessional and impacts our budgets and schedule. There may also be context-dependent data collection that can not be reperformed. It is very concerning that ESRI's response to a serious data collection issue is so blasé.  ... View more

Does the account you are using have access to the feature service? We had that happen recently after we republished a survey and it recreated the feature service - we forgot to update the sharing settings for the new service, so it would hang when the form was trying to connect to the feature service. ... View more

Glad that worked! That happens to me all the time. Some fields that I expect to be numerical are processed as text instead, especially if I am using a select one with numerical values. ... View more

I think the pulldata function would do what you are looking for: https://community.esri.com/groups/survey123/blog/2016/10/27/the-pulldata-function-access-external-data  ... View more

Thank you for the responses! I think the issue is that we have a non-linear data entry process. Users are walking through a building and inventorying structures they find within buildings. They will create a separate record for each unique type of a subsystem that they find. This means that they have to tab through pages in the repeat to find records for each type. What we expect to find in each building is highly variable so it is not practical to use a set repeat count to try to pre-fill fields. Doug, I had thought about a solution similar to what you suggested which involved filling out the subsystem as a separate question and then using choice filters and relevant filters so that the form would display the appropriate choices and questions based on the subsystem that was entered. However, given the number of possible combinations of types and subsystems, it is impractical for the inspectors to tab through that many records to find the appropriate subsystem and type if they encounter that particular structure again later in the inspection (it could be over 50 different combinations per system). An alternate solution that would be helpful would be a different way to display repeats using the grid layout. If the repeat records could be viewable like a table rather than records to tab through, that would be incredibly helpful for this scenario. This way, users could easily view data they had entered and would not have to go back and forth through the records or try to remember which types they had already entered.  I also considered having them write down every instance of the types separately so that they would not have to tab through the repeats and then trying to apply some logic outside of the repeat to summarize the data as it is entered, but it there is some user interpretation that is applied during the inspection that is difficult to capture programmatically through the form. We would like the resulting data to be formatted as: System    Subsystem   Type    Rating    Quantity  And not: Subsytem1 Type1 Rating      Subsystem1 Type1 Quantity     Subsystem1 Type2 Rating     Subsystem1 Type2 Quantity ... etc... ... View more

I see what you mean now, Jordan. I had misunderstood your question on the initial read-through. Your question seems similar to one that was posted previously: Survey 123 - Repeat Count not allowing to publish form . It looks like the repeat-count setting requires a field in the parent layer in order to work properly. Not sure if this is exactly the issue you are having since you mention that it is specific to the Connect version you are on, but wouldn't hurt to check the Schema preview to see if maybe the repeat count is trying to add a field that doesn't exist in your service.  ... View more

Does that field exist in the feature service that you are writing to? If you are using a submission URL, the schema must match the schema of your form, it will not add fields when republishing the form from Connect. Try adding the new field to your feature service (making sure the field type, length, any other field attributes match exactly) and then republish the form. ... View more

Can you remove the field that is the wrong type and re-add it to the service before republishing your form? I had to do that for a text field that I had incorrectly mapped to an integer field. I removed the original integer field and then added it back with the same field name as a text field. I republished my survey with the correct field binding and then my forms were able to submit successfully.   Another alternative might be republishing the form using a submission URL that has the correct schema.  ... View more

Thanks very much for the quick reply, James. I will check the indexes and will post if that resolved the issue. Edited to Add: I checked the indexes on my GlobalID fields, but they were the opposite of what you described (Unique: No, Ascending: Yes) and I couldn't seem to find a way to change them since they were created when the GlobalID field was added.  I was able to resolve the issue another way. After reading the bug description more carefully, I realized that my setup is different than described in BUG-000117394. In my case, I had multiple parent feature layers related to a single table and the Global ID values from the parent feature layers were being passed to a GUID field in the related table through the custom url scheme. If the relationship classes were set up to use the same GUID field in the related table as the foreign key, I received the error message described in BUG-000117394. If I created a separate GUID field for each parent layer in the related table and used this as the foreign key for the relationship class, I was able to submit my forms without error. ... View more

I am receiving the exact same error message for the same workflow running the latest versions of Connect and the field app.  We had been running this workflow on another project a few months ago and it worked without error, but even that setup will not work with the latest versions.  ... View more

Hi James, Any idea when this feature might be incorporated? We really like the Inbox feature but have a project that requires offline data collection. Not being able to access any map at all or even zoom in on the points in the Inbox is really limiting our workflow. Thanks very much, Brittney ... View more