Latest Contributions by RonnieRichards

Has this been resolved in anyway? I have been experimenting with the result objects and they seem to have the same problem with the limited output with the start and stop times, same as GetMessages() ? What would also be helpful are the additional runtime messages from the 10.x tools just like the author posted. It does not seem the result object contains these messages. Executing: Select E:\lidar_derivatives\processing_data\rs_hydro_processing\fishnet.shp E:\lidar_derivatives\processing_data\rs_hydro_processing\tile_479\tile_479.gdb\tile_479 "TILE_ID = 479" ... View more

A couple of ideas... In past versions of arcpy the .LOC was not required maybe try to add the .loc to the full locator path and see if this resolves the value error For the ArcGIS Server connection, try removing the .AGS from the connection file used for the publication. This change occurred somewhere around Pro 2.7. Was the ArcGIS Server connection file created in ArcMap or ArcGIS Pro? There is a difference mainly with how the credential is saved and believe we had to convert our connections over to the pro versions.  ... View more

Thank you @JonahLay that is very helpful to know and we will proceed with the new methods!  Also thanks again @RandyCasey & @HannesZiegler for the quick responses are most appreciated! Please close this idea as functionality already exists in FeatureSharingDraft  ... View more

Thanks again for the information and one of the solutions references is  using the arcpy library to create the service draft. The other is using FeatureSharingDraft which we will have to look into but why can;t these be treated the same as feature classes?  I went thru our publishing products and our tables SD drafts are failing with arcpy method arcpy.mp.CreateWebLayerSDDraft. This is how all of our Enterprise GDB sourced datasets are being published to AGOL and the reason for this idea for table support in arcpy CreateWebLayerSDDraft.   ... View more

Thank you both! I will review these and see what is different with our current process. We are having challenges with our existing feature layer script breaking in the publish method when sourced as a table.  ... View more

@ShanaBritt  thank you for alerting me to the differences between the Subaddress and PointAddress results. The way this is topic is heading is much different than the original submitted idea so if there is a better location to explain this please let me know. However I am still seeing the same match score results which is confusing. To be specific when using the PointAddress type we do get a hit on the address string: 4791 PELL DR STE 1, SACRAMENTO, CA 95838 but with a 100% score. Shouldn't the extra string elements detected as a unit type and unit number reduce scoring? Are the locator output fields documented anywhere? It seemed to do so in the legacy locators with a match of 96.2 and a it shows in the scoring component return but using the "Locality" attribute: Comp_score: ;House=100; prefix=100; pretype=100; StName=100; suftype=100; suffix=100; LocalityPreDir=100; LocalityPreType=100; Locality=85.63; LocalitySufType=100; Admin=100; Postal=100 Its seems like PointAddress scoring is only reduced when other elements are not perfect like the street name or postal city, so could extra the unit information be considered in the overall match score? As illustrated it did in the legacy locators and helpful to know the input string was not an identical match to the candidate. The scoring components are also very valuable as well and hopefully they will be incorporated soon.    ... View more

This can also be caused if the Excel workbook is encrypted with a password. The same error with be thrown if the xlsx has a password. The password must be removed from the workbook to be compliant with Desktop or Arcpy in AGP v3.0.   ... View more

Hello @ShanaBritt , Sorry for the delay, this has been on our list to test and staff have just completed a big round of testing.  We have created locators using 2.9.3 and still seeing the same results where the INPUT ADDRESS is not returned in the response and getting unit returns when they really dont exist. But when the units do exist in source data, the hit rate has increased significantly from our previous locators.  For this idea the original concept has not been applied yet: This input candidate still gets the same match and response as reported in 10.6.1. Ideally we want to see the input address line back in the response so we can compare it to the match, especially for purposes such as this when the input DOES NOT MATCH the match, especially with a 100% match score. This is important if the new locators are going to return erroneous results with 100% match score for an address which does not exist in the source.  It would be much easier to report on these if the component scores were included but those still do not seem available yet.      ... View more

Agreed. Feature extraction should also be configured and able to be performed at the class level. So if we want zip codes features to be extracted ideally we could specify a regex expression , arcade expression or python and have those feature types be associated to a locator service.  For the same document we might want to map any addresses mention so it would be defined we a regex which identifies address strings and want to geocode these against World Locator service? Defining 1 feature at a time as the author is running into is not sustainable and defeats the purpose of the product.  It does not appear to support regex for locations or custom attributes so will likely be creating an idea for this type of support.  ... View more

Similar to:  Enable Cart for multiple Open Data downloads - Esri Community Select Multiple Items in Open Data and Download as... - Esri Community Multiple dataset downloads for Open Data Portals - Esri Community ... View more

We are experiencing this same issue when running the ESRI example code with python. We have been running this code for several years and this never used to happen.  Performed a repair on the desktop install as Adityaraj Chavada mentioned above. This seemed to make Catalog work once and then it went back to reporting the "Function had no effect" error.  We are on 10.7.1 . What finally worked for us was to upgrade our geodatabases from 10.5.1. -> 10.7.1 and the Analyze & Rebuild Indexes function worked as expected. Wish the tool would report such issues it is capable of knowing the GDB and software releases and should report this clearly to the administrator!!! In past versions the maintenance tools were rather stable working between versions of the geodatabase but that seems to be a new scenario which needs to be tested in future upgrades. bummer. ... View more

Thanks for the reference links and suggestion. This candidate does not exist yet so in this situation introducing the #STE did not work. We are expecting a no match like the SubAddress 10.x locator or the match without the unit with a score less than 100. This is one way we detect if an address exists or not. If addresses coming back with 100% score but do not match the input address this is a concern and should show up in the component scores but those don't appear to be available yet in the new locator roles.  For us to inject # before the unit type into the single line input string will be challenging from our enterprise system if not nearly impossible. That does not seem like a reasonable solution.  Shana Britt ... View more