-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conflicting Sizes Returned From arcgis.gis.Item #43
Comments
@bixb0012 yes this is a result of optimization in search logic, not by the Python API, but by the REST API. Searching returns results from an index that captures only certain fields and size is not part of it. However when you use After filtering your search result, you could call the This is not documented because they hydration logic happens transparently to the user when you request for a property that is not initialized. |
@AtmaMani , thanks for the prompt reply and additional information. I get what you are saying about the REST API doing the optimization, and why that would be beneficial. I tried calling |
@bixb0012 good point, I anticipated that question from you. Interestingly |
Any updates from the Portal team? If, for whatever reason the Portal team doubles down on |
@bixb0012, thanks for the suggestion. We will fix this in the next update. |
Fixed in v1.0.1 of arcgis package |
I am trying to understand this behavior:
If I retrieve an item using
arcgis.gis.ContentManager.search
, I get anarcgis.gis.Item
object where the size is returned as -1. If I retrieve the exact same item usingarcgis.gis.ContentManager.get
, I get anarcgis.gis.Item
object where the size is returned as 3850776, which just happens to be the correct size.If
search
andget
are both returningarcgis.gis.Item
objects, why do the results for size differ?I am going to anticipate a possible response and reply. If the answer is that
search
doesn't retrieve all of the items properties whileget
does, then I ask "why not?" And if the response to that is 'performance,' then at a minimum the documentation needs to clearly point this out.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: