Latest Contributions by YukunXing

Thank you so much, I learned something today. I never paid much attention to the "Authority" field and didn't think it mattered, especially when the name of the CS and parameters appear recognized. Running the data through the Define Projection Tool and specifying the CS with the WKID as you suggested worked perfectly.  ... View more

Did you every get it resolved Aleksander? I'm running into a similar issue with a fresh installation ArcMap 10.8.1. It took a long time got get pass the "initialize application" stage (~10 min or so), then another long time stuck at "loading document", before the splash screen disappears. ... View more

Kris, It's been a while since I last used it and my own example have been deleted, so I'm just copying from my old notes. Assuming you publish the FC/table with relationship and add the service to a web map (which will be used in Collector). The URL part is done on the web map via "pop-up" configuration of the parent ("asset", using my "asset" and "Inspection" example). 1. 2. This was the link in my test: arcgis-survey123://?itemID=ba6b648f7ee64147899e5f3f67bd8d1e&field:parentID={GlobalID} In this case “parentID” is the GUID field of the “Inspection” table, and “GlobalID” is the GUID field of the “asset” feature class, and they are what’s used as foreign key and primary key respectively in the relationship class.   The itemID in the “Link” can be obtained from ArcGIS Online when you clicked on the form item, e.g.: Hope this helps. ... View more

Andrew, thanks for the heads up. That need is behind us for now but could come up again in the future, so it's definitely good to know. ... View more

Thanks James for the clarification on updating existing data with Survey123. And you are right about the problem with my survey for the related table. I'm not completely sure what caused the ID fields to be non-editable, but it was possible I used the "add global ids" tool to create them, and if that's the case it might be the reason. Seeing your last reply I manually added a new GUID field ("parentID") to the related table and re-created the relationship class ("parentID" being the foreign key), re-published the feature/table, and added the "parentID" field to the survey, passed the primary key value from the parent to it with URL, and I was able to successfully submit a survey. When i select the asset point in ArcGIS Online viewer, I could see the related records of the "Inspections" table containing the data/photo I just submitted. So it seems the workflow is relatively straightforward at this point. I didn't use any intermediate field for parent ID calculation. I will try offline mode next and see whether I'll run into issues with "{}".  Update: Tried launching Survey123 from offline map in Collector and filling out the survey (both celluar and wi-fi are off), and turning network back on to send the saved survey. Worked without any issue - a record was created in the "Inspection" table, and it was associated to the correct asset point. I really appreciate all your help on this James. ... View more

James, please see "Details" in my post at the very bottom of this thread - I was trying to cover more questions after I posted my original question to Chris' post, just before you responded to me. Sorry for the double post! ... View more

Thanks for the quick response James. I don't know how to make it editable - unlike other fields there is no checkbox for this field I can play with. Not sure whether I missed something, or because it is the foreign key of the related table (which I guess is necessary for the relationship class). ... View more

I could really use some help to understand what I'm doing wrong.I used Collector before but am new to Survey123. Initially I published a feature service with existing data, selected a feature in Collector, and opened Survey123 via pop-up/URL. While the survey fields were "pre-populated" correctly, submitting the survey would create a new feature instead of updating the existing one. My first question - is it possible to update existing features with Survey123, and if so what I might have missed? It was at this point that I bumped into this thread. As a completely separate test I have been trying to make the related table approach work since yesterday, without much luck. Mostly I have been following Ismael's June 15, 2017 update and the Dec 7, 2017 "summary" by James. It seems I'm having issue with the GUID field (foreign key) of the related table. If it is added as a field to the survey, I got an error when trying to upload the survey, because that field is not editable. If it is not part of the survey, the survey can be uploaded, but when submitting survey data I run into a INSERT error again related to the same field, which I guess because no value is provided for it. Details +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Created the "asset" layer, created three features. Added and populated the "GlobalID" field (GUID). Created a blank "Inspections" table, added a "GlobalID" field (GUID). Created a relationship class (asset: Inspections, 1:M), with the respective "GlobalID" fields being the primary and foreign keys. Published "asset"/"Inspection" as a feature service. In Survey123Connect, created a survey against that service. Changed "form_id" in the settings tab to "Inspections". Deleted all questions related to fields of the "asset" layer from the survey - I noticed the generated survey didn't have any "GlobalID" field to being with. Delete the two "repeat" lines from the survey. If I don't add "GlobalID" to the survey, no matter whether I attach the "&field:GlobalID={GlobalID}" part to the pop-up URL or not, when submitting survey data I get this error: "Add error code 1000 - the INSERT statement conflicted with the FOREIGN KEY constraint "REL_FK_ASSET_INSPECTIONS_INSPECTIONS_0". The conflict occurred in database ..., column 'GlobalID' ". If I add "GlobalID" to the survey as a text question, this was the error message I got when uploading the survey: "The custom feature service submission url is not compatible with this survey (Field GlobalID in Inspections is not editable)". I see Chris' post above about storing the parent GUID passed by the URL in a separate/additional GUID field. So I added a separate GUID field ("parent_GlobalID", in additon to "GlobalID"), and used it instead of "GLobalID" (the foreign key) to hold the parent GlobalID passed via URL. I was able to upload the survey, but when submitting data I ran into the same INSERT error as above whether field binding is set to null or "esriFieldTypeGUID". I then added another GUID field ("parent_GlobalIDorig") to "Inspections" and the survey. Field binding is set to null, and passed parent GlobalID into this field in the URL. Field binding for "parent_GlobalID" is set to "esriFieldTypeGUID" this time, and its calculation is set to: if(string-length(${parent_GlobalIDorig})>36,substr(${parent_GlobalIDorig}, 1, string-length(${parent_GlobalIDorig}) - 1),${parent_GlobalIDorig}) Ran into the same INSERT error again. The last thing I tried was to replace "parent_GlobalIDorig" with "GlobalID" in the survey. Once I do that I couldn't upload the survey, because "GlobalID" is not editable. ... View more

Hey Chris, I tried to follow your example. In my case "ParentID" is the foreign key of the related table. However, I couldn't add it as a field to the survey. If I do, I get this error when trying to upload the survey: The custom feature service submission url is not compatible with this survey (Field ParentID in Inspections is not editable)" Any guess what I might have missed? Thanks! ... View more

Hi Jeremy, Sorry for the delay in replying, it completely slipped off my mind. Here is the Bug #: BUG-000089338 ... View more

Jeremy, Thanks for confirming. We are hoping to create a series of 3d maps to help residents better understanding flood versus their properties, as this will present the depth of the flood to a certain degree, in addition to the "in or out" judgment one can make from standard flood maps. I also looked into sharing the scene using ArcGIS Online, but the 3d feature limit of 2000 is too small for what we need. ... View more