Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Alteryx Connect Ideas

Share your Connect product ideas - we're listening!

Directory Input Documentation

I published a workflow today that scans a directory for files and then pushes them to a Dynamic Input. I noticed that on Connect there is no relationship there anywhere referencing that we are scraping a directory. 


Connect has the db inputs and outputs and the "File Input" that references what the Dynamic input is originally set to go find, but there is nothing referencing the directory other than any notes that I have added to the description. 


The reason that I think this may be important. We connect to a folder where FTP files are dumped by a powershell script and we want to go through that folder with Alteryx and pull and upload as needed. However the file that existed in the original input (when we created this workflow) no longer exists. So the visual relationship is broken in Connect as soon as that file is dropped. If perhaps we don't have a tool that references this sort of connection to a directory, having the ability to designate a dynamic connection to the original file might be good instead. We just want to be able for those in the future to reference a location, rather than a file that hasn't existed in a while.


Directory Input.png



+1.  I noticed that it does show the directory under the 'File input' section but it does not create a relationship.  I think connect may need to add a 'directory' object just like 'table', 'procedure', etc...

Alteryx Partner

+1 pretty important information

This way you can easily understand how vulnerable you and your company are

to old school files kept in messy directories...


Hi @Treyson ,


and would like to be able to create such relationship manually or do you expect the relationship to be created manually? 


The challenge I see here is that the whole path is automatically generated, and there even though in your case it is the last folder you want to create the relationship on, in general case it might the one above it. E.g. you generate reports per user per month, then you have folder structure


and therefore you would suddenly expect that the relationship is supposed to be crated on the /reports/ folder which is not the parent of those files. 


In 2019.3 we have introduced the support of dynamic inputs and outputs and therefore we are creating the lineage directly on the file. But for obvious reasons we are doing it only for the last run of a workflow. 


Would such solution be an answer for your use case? 



Status changed to: Comments Requested

Hey @VojtechT I have been removed a bit from this problem because I am not longer with that organization. However @OldDogNewTricks or @SeanAdams may be able to elaborate on where this is for them.

@VojtechT- I would expect that the relationship would be created to the directory path that contains the file (that is being searched via dynamic input or input tool).


For your example above:

  • Directory tool - folder path is '\reports' and the 'search sub directories' is selected, then the relationship should be to '\reports'
  • Directory tool - folder path is '\reports\nameA\fileA' and the 'search sub directories' is not selected, then the relationship should be to '\reports\nameA'
  • Input tool - the path is 'reports\nameA\*', then the relationship should be to '\reports\nameA'
  • Input tool - the path is 'reports\nameA\fileA', then the relationship should be to '\reports\nameA\fileA'


At least that is what makes sense to me, I'd love to hear other opinions.


Hi @OldDogNewTricks ,


I would like one little clarification. Are we talking about Dynamic input tool or Directory tool? 


Because what you describes makes perfect sense to me for the Directory tool:

2019-11-19_13-57-19.pngDirectory tool


But I am not sure about the Dynamic input tool:

2019-11-19_13-58-27.pngDynamic input tool


Could you please provide me with more some printscreen to show field you have in your mind?


thank you

Sorry, I was referring to the Directory tool.  I usually use the two in combination and I was working from memory.


Original commented edited to remove confusion.

Status changed to: Accepted

Awesome. In such case it's clear to me and there shouldn't be any technical restriction that wouldn't allow us to implement such support. 


Teamwork makes the dream work!