Community Tip - You can subscribe to a forum, label or individual post and receive email notifications when someone posts a new topic or reply. Learn more! X
Model Check can rename the old layer to the new name. No manipulating features from one layer to the next & layer rules stay in place. Probably the cleanest option for what you're describing.
Should even work if you have the old layer and the new layer in the same part, though I haven't tested specifically for your question. It'll simply move the old layer items to the new layer, effectively merging the two.
In Reply to Doug Schaefer:
WF4 / WF5
We have a client that uses config.pro 'def_layer' statements to define
their layers (this is their company wide standard; changing it is not an
option). They have adopted new layer names as part of their migration
from WF4 to WF5. We have an ongoing project with them, started in WF4
but will be delivered in WF5. I need to deliver files with their new
layer names.
So, currently I have layers with the old name, tied to the old
'def_layer' statements. If I simply update the config.pro with the new
'def_layer' statements, I'll end up with duplicate layers, one set with
the old names and existing features but no longer tied to any
'def_layer' statements, one set with the new names and any new features
tied to the new 'def_layer' statements.
The cleanest way forward seems to be to remove the 'def_layer'
statements, rename the layers in all parts & assemblies and then add in
the new 'def_layer' statements. Is there an easier way that I'm
missing?
Model Check doesn't really interact with rules. It's just that if layer rules exist, it will preserve them while both renaming the layer and keeping the features on that layer.
I think the mapkey method will also work. Model Check will be the cleanest and least painful route, depending upon how much time you want to spend checking into it and setting up a simple configuration.
In Reply to Doug Schaefer:
Don - These aren't rule based layers, these are defined but config.pro
'def_layer' statements. Similar functionality, but they work completely
different. Using model check for the rename is a great idea, but I've
never used it. I may have to check into it.
Doug Schaefer