Skip to main content
Question

Dynamic writer dropping record - with no warning logged

  • March 11, 2026
  • 2 replies
  • 26 views

mattebridges
Contributor
Forum|alt.badge.img+7

Hello all - grateful for some suggestions here - I’m being driven slowly mad…

We are developing a ‘data portal’ style workbench running in FME2025.1, using a dynamic writer to deal with multiple input and output datasets and multiple possible output formats - the dataset and output format are specified by user parameters.

The source datasets are point or polygon datasets stored in an MSSQL Esri SDE and output formats  include all the usual GIS data formats.

This is generally working well but one polygon dataset is failing to wite out. In this case the log reports the following:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Feature output statistics for `GENERIC' writer using keyword `GENERIC_1':
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                           Features Written Summary
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
==============================================================================
Total Features Written                                                       0
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                            Features Read Summary
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
==============================================================================
Total Features Read                                                          0
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                           Features Written Summary
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
                                                                             1
==============================================================================
Total Features Written                                                       1
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

It appears that the record reaches the dynamic writer but it is then silently dropped and not exported - there are no relevant warnings shown in the log.

The approach that we are using in the workbench is consistent with other datasets from the same source database and it works fine for all of these.

I’ve checked the following:

  1. schema feature is present on the record - same approach used for other datasets in the workbench
  2. there are no contentious attribute names 
  3. geometry is valid (currently stored in MSSQL Esri SDE - and a GeometryValidator is included in this workbench)
  4. the data writes out successfully with a non-dynamic writer

I can’t see anything different in the way this dataset is handled within this workbench when compared to the other datasets that are working well. I also can see nothing in the data itself to explain why it would be rejected by the dynamic writer across all formats (including even CSV).

Has anyone else encountered anything similar or able to suggest anything further I can try.

Thanks in advance. 

2 replies

nielsgerrits
VIP
Forum|alt.badge.img+65

Can you try a more recent version of FME? Not sure if this is related but there were issues with dynamic writing in the earlier 2025 versions. It got better in 2025.2.

https://community.safe.com/authoring%2D6/fanout%2Din%2Dwriter%2Dfails%2D2025%2D1%2D1%2D38934

 


mattebridges
Contributor
Forum|alt.badge.img+7
  • Author
  • Contributor
  • March 11, 2026

Thanks for the suggestion ​@nielsgerrits - I’ve tried with 2025.2.3.0 and still getting the same issue.

As a workaround I could add a static writer per format for this dataset and route output accordingly using the parameter value but it seems a shame to have to do this and would be good to understand what’s happening.