Latest Contributions by TimMinter

@SSWoodward  ArcGIS Pro > view metadata > metadata > Save As > Save As XML... > Without Sensitive Info > output.xml file Portal > item description > metadata > Overwrite > Open file > output.xml file   If it's a bug, it would be great if ArcGIS Pro team could add it to the test harness(es?). ... View more

@SSWoodward video attached ... View more

Hi @SSWoodward - I see it happening in ArcGIS Pro 3.1.2, various fields.  If I then "share as web layer" the ":25" shows up in the relevant item description field.   ... View more

@nikos, @alo5108 - several community members have come up with a partial solution for getting ArcGIS Enterprise services into Power BI.  Power BI has a technical constraint in that it cannot handle more than ~32,000 characters in a single cell value.  We frequently realize this constraint when we supply polygon coordinate pairs that exceed the max value.  So, sometimes not all of the polygons draw and then we have to look for ways to get the coordinate pair characters below the max value (generalize, limit precision, hope, etc.).  This info might be useful to you: https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-for-power-bi-questions/shape-in-geojson/m-p/1265256/highlight/true#M1443 https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-for-power-bi-questions/shape-in-geojson/m-p/1285024#M1494 cheers, tim ... View more

Allow administrators to specify 1) must specify category; 2) from specified category set. Example: we have many categories established in portal we require anyone who adds an item to categorize it at a minimum with: Information Security Category Public Sensitive Confidential Confidential with Special Handling Requirements ... View more

joining to - ArcGIS Enterprise could secure item descriptions and content separately Also note that in ArcGIS Pro for various metadata styles there are separate constraint indicators for 1) the metadata; and 2) the data.  ArcGIS Enterprise Portal could respect that information when content is published from ArcGIS Pro. ... View more

@MarceloMarques - Got it.  Thanks again.  If there were a "Kudos" button for your replies, I'd be clicking them wildly 🙂. ... View more

@MarceloMarques - Thank you.  Revealing a bit more about my situation... ArcGIS Pro clients are all at 3.1.2 ArcGIS Enterprise components are at 11.1.x Python 3 scripts, ModelBuilder models, and similar incantations are all functioning more or less as expected. All of the above are working happily enough with the 10.9.1.2.9 enterprise geodatabase in SQL Server 2019 via ODBC Driver 18. I manage enterprise geodatabases in sandbox, development, test, and production environments.  For an upgrade like this, I'll restore a backup of the production databases to the development instance, and then operate on those, iterating until things go green. I'll deal with my custom SQL code, SQL Server views, stored procedures, triggers, etc. as I need to.  I own the costs and risks of that stuff getting busted by Esri's enterprise geodatabase changes. We dropped all support for ArcGIS 32-bit apps in February 2022, so if any linger and someone yells, we'll use it as an opportunity to get them current. So, given those conditions, it sounds like you're suggesting minimal or no trouble if I perform the recommended upgrade process from 10.9.1.2.9 to "ArcGIS Pro 3.1.x - 11.1.y.z" in my development SQL Server 2019 environment.  Does that sound about right? Your answer helps me design my upgrade process.  I'm looking to short-circuit as much of the process as possible, just expecting that there is a happy path I need to find.  Ideally, that happy path is laid out for me in the documentation.  I'm asking about all this stuff because my experience with the documentation is that there are frequently gaps between what it states and how the software works. thx, tim ... View more

@MarceloMarques, @ChestonDobbins - The documentation is a little light on details.  After tossing out, "breaking changes" concepts like the changes to the fully qualified names for enterprise geodatabase objects, it would be helpful to specify what we can expect to break, suggest mitigations, etc. So, when I upgrade my "10.9.1.2.9" enterprise geodatabases in SQL Server 2019 to "ArcGIS Pro 3.1.0 - 11.1.0.41833" enterprise geodatabases, should I expect some, all, or none of the following to break? APRX/LYRX layer connections to EGDB feature classes, tables, etc. ArcGIS Enterprise Server map services that use the EGDB feature classes, tables, etc. Python 3 scripts ModelBuilder models other stuff? thx, tim ... View more

Yes, I've been able to find that outside of the My Esri Support workflow.  I think it's a great idea to provide it within the workflow to help me go through a logical sequence of self-service before I commit to an Esri support request.  Sequence being something like: Is the power on?  yes Is the PC on?  yes Are all ArcGIS dependencies correct?  yes Did I read and follow the instructions?  yes Is it a known bug?   Is there a workaround?   etc. You get the idea 🙂 tim ... View more

@RudolfdeMunnik I just got a chance to follow your lead and got it to work with our data.  It looks to me like you've tested it thoroughly.  I'm forcing WGS84 decimal degrees (WKID 4326) in my REST request like this: https://services1.arcgis.com/bKDOijB8sneN5004/arcgis/rest/services/AGRIC_GIS_DATA/FeatureServer/1/query?where=1=1&outFields=*&geometryPrecision=4&outSR=4326&f=json  Then, I adjust the "Shape" custom field code like this: Text.Replace(Text.FromBinary(Json.FromValue([geometry])), "]]]" ,"]]], ""spatialReference"":{""wkid"":4326,""latestWkid"":4326}") Then, finally, I add your optional ShpTxtLen so I can see how things worked out and tweak the coordinate precision if needed. Thanks again! tim ... View more

@RudolfdeMunnik Nice!  One quick thought on dealing with the 32k character constraint is that the REST service request can specify an appropriately lower precision.  So, going from 7 in your example to a lower precision that is appropriate for use in Power BI may be some good trickery.  I'm thinking that Power BI doesn't know or care about topology and is happiest with cartoon geometries anyway, so it kind of doesn't matter as long as the area looks ok to the eye. ... View more