Feature Class does not have a definition.

1134
10
12-03-2023 03:58 PM
RodNielson1
New Contributor II

When I create a feature class in ArcPro and then fry to open it in ArcMap, I get a message:

Open Failed. Error opening feature class. The item does not have definition. 

I only started getting this error last week after I upgraded to Pro 3.2. Every time I had done this prior to 3.2 I had no issues with it. 

I creating a point FC from a CSV file using "XY Table to Point" in the geoprocessing toolbox. I have not changed anything in my .CSV file, and I have not changed anything in the feature dataset which houses the results. What's worse, the older FC's I have in the same FD I can add to ArcMap with no problems. 

Is this a 3.2 thing? Should I revert to an older version of Pro?

10 Replies
Robert_LeClair
Esri Notable Contributor

Hmmmm...everytime I see general "wonkiness" with an upgrade a few questions arise in my head.

1.  Did you do a complete uninstall of ArcGIS 3.x before installing ArcGIS Pro 3.2?
2.  If not, then what you could do is rename the ESRI folder in your C:\users\user_profile\appdata\local and C:\users\user_profile\appdata\roaming to ESRI_OLD.  If you did not experience this in the earlier ArcGIS Pro version, then this "soft reset" tends to fix the more strange error messages.

0 Kudos
RodNielson1
New Contributor II

Hi Robert,

Made the change that you suggested and then recreated the FC from the CSV file I have, saved it to the FD in the geodatabase where all of the data is being saved. Then tried to import the new FC into ArcMap 10.8.2 and I got the "doesn't have a definition" again.

One of the confusing things is that I'm doing the same process twice (we're currently tracking 2 feral pigs with GPS collars, Kelly and Angie), and I'm only getting the issue with Kelly's data. I create a FC for Angie the same way and when I import that into ArcMap, I have no issue. 

Both FD's for Kelly and Angie are in the same geodatabase, and both were created 6 months ago using ArcMap 10.8.2. 

0 Kudos
Robert_LeClair
Esri Notable Contributor

Interesting.  So I wonder if something is corrupt with Kelly's CSV file?  You could open that *.csv and save as a new *.csv.  Or open it in MS Excel and save it as a *.xlsx file and try to bring that in as a FC in the Kelly FDS.  Then recreate the workflow.  Does it work or still throw the error?

0 Kudos
RodNielson1
New Contributor II

I save the CSV file as a new CSV file then created the point FC again and had the same result. In ArcMap, the point file still complained of having no definition. 

I saved as a .xlsx file, recreated the points FC again and that opened in ArcMap without the issue. 

I've been using the tabular data in CSV format for months, and this only started, and then only for one project, when I upgraded to Pro 3.2. 

0 Kudos
Robert_LeClair
Esri Notable Contributor

Can you share the file with me or a subset of the data so I may test on my side?  If so, my email address is rleclair at esri dot com - thx!

0 Kudos
ShariF
by
New Contributor III

I am having the same issue I feel your pain. I developed a huge model in Pro 3.2 to create some output and I am having issues uploading it to SDE. I think it *might* be compatibility of the output and our version of the geodatabase (??). When I try in ArcMap I get the same "The item does not have a definition". I'm pondering what to do as I might lose a week of work. I'll be following along to see what others say.

 

0 Kudos
DanNarsavage_IDWR
New Contributor III

It looks like the issue for me was that the feature class I created in Pro contains a DATEONLY field.  I think that ArcMap doesn't support DATEONLY fields in file geodatabase feature classes.  At any rate, once I removed that DATEONLY field, all was well with the feature class in ArcMap.

Robert_LeClair
Esri Notable Contributor

@DanNarsavage_IDWR - you're correct!  ArcMap, being a 32-bit application, does not support 64-bit field types that were introduced at ArcGIS Pro 3.2.  You can read more about what's new in geodatabases here.

0 Kudos
DanNarsavage_IDWR
New Contributor III

Regarding DATE vs DATEONLY . . . I enjoy the irony that twice the bits are needed to store half the information.  😄

0 Kudos