Filter Output Not Matching Python Input #5

[aramageshu]

Hello,

I've run across a very confusing issue. This filter is finding 0 records to be True, and the Browse Tool displays this as expected:

This outputs to a Python Tool as Input #5. When I read this in the Python Tool, it is displaying a dataframe from a previous run before I changed both the column selections and the filter parameters.

I've only included the shape of the dataframe in the screenshot above since I would expect an empty dataframe.

Some additional points:

- The other inputs into this Python Tool have the correct data and shape from their respective upstream output tools.

- This only occurs when the Filter Tool doesn't return any records meeting True.

- This has happened to other inputs into this specific tool before changing the filter parameters that returned records meeting the conditions.

- I have verified the output of the Filter Tool is on the "True" output and not the "False" output.

I've attached the workflow. Thank you for your help!

[ImadZidan]

Hello @aramageshu ,

Yes that seems to be caching. It is mentioned in the documentation.

Did you try running it in a production mode.

[aramageshu · Accepted solution]

@ImadZidan I reviewed the documentation. Can you confirm this?

If I understand this correctly, the data is cached so that I can develop within the Python Tool. Since there was no output of the Filter Tool, it did not overwrite the cache for input #5 from the previous run. In production, there is no cache persisting between workflow runs and I would not run into this same problem.

Edit: I'm marking this as the solution since I think it describes what's going on in this issue. Thanks to @ImadZidan for helping get to the bottom of this.

[ImadZidan]

Hello @aramageshu ,

what I understood from the documentation is exactly that. This is perhaps why you are getting the last cached dataset of anchor 5. I looked around and that was my only explanation. I looked at your work flow and its constructed well to the point.

That is my take but for validation, I guess someone from Alteryx needs to confirm.

sorry for not being very affirmative as I am not Alteryx and you would understand that.