Skip to main content
Archived

Add Option to Turn OFF Accumulation Mode in FeatureMerger

Related products:Transformers
  • February 17, 2016
  • 6 replies
  • 67 views
R

Add Option to Turn OFF Accumulation Mode in FeatureMerger i case I don't want any attribute from supplier.

Problem occurs when there is just 1 element in the list of Requestor features and 2 elements in the list of Supplier features. Both lists have the same name.

After FeatureMerger with Accumulation Mode: Use Requestor.

The Second list element from Supplier will become the Second list element in Requestor

Which is quite annoying.

Final note:

Switching Requestor and Supplier port can provide a workaround, but In my case it does not give me the result I want and causing more problem than I already have.

My final solution is to always remove list from supplier before merging.

This post is closed to further activity.
It may be an old question, an answered question, an implemented idea, or a notification-only post.
Please check post dates before relying on any information in a question or answer.
For follow-up or related questions, please post a new question or idea.
If there is a genuine update to be made, please contact us and request that the post is reopened.

6 replies

fmelizard
Safer
Forum|alt.badge.img+22
  • fmelizardSafer
  • Safer
  • February 21, 2016

You can set the Feature Merge Type to Geometry instead of attributes if you don't want to merge attributes. But do you want some attributes merged and not others? Or is it just the list merging that is the issue?

R
  • roger7467
  • Author
  • February 22, 2016

I don't want to merge supplier attribute or Geomety, I just want use supplier as a reference or a filter to get only part of Requestor.

So it is just a list merging problem, I don't want to merge list members from supplier.

I can remove the list and all the attribute except ID from supplier first, but I can't always remember to do that.

So I want an option to 'Not Merge Supplier' as Accumulation Mode.

fmelizard
Safer
Forum|alt.badge.img+22
  • fmelizardSafer
  • Safer
  • February 22, 2016

To say it another way, you do not want to merge anything at all. You're just checking if there are matching IDs from one stream of feature to another. So we'd have, in the "Feature Merge Type:" a new choice "Nothing" -- which woudl merge nothing from the suppliers onto the requestors?

R
  • roger7467
  • Author
  • February 23, 2016

Exactly!!!

geosander
Forum|alt.badge.img+7
  • geosander
  • February 23, 2016

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but couldn't you just use the Referenced and Unreferenced output ports for this? Keep in mind though that they output Supplier features, so you might want to swap the incoming features on the Requestor and Supplier ports depending on which set of features you need to check for matching IDs.

To illustrate the importance of what to connect to which input port, here's an example:

 

If you have more Suppliers than (matching) Requestors, Supplier features will leave both the Referenced and Unreferenced ports. If you swap the input (so more Requestors than Suppliers), nothing will come out of the Unreferenced port, but there will be Supplier features leaving the Referenced port and there are also Requestor features coming out of the NotMerged port.
R
  • roger7467
  • Author
  • February 23, 2016

sander_s, That's smart! I should have thought about that earlier.

But still, 'merging list element' is still a bug which bothers me most.

Community Stats

32,730
Posts
124,161
Replies
41,221
Members
Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
A product of
Safe Software respectfully acknowledges that we live, learn and work on the traditional and unceded territories of the Kwantlen, Katzie, and Semiahmoo First Nations.