Generic Field Names: F1 vs Field_1

I'm working with some older workflows that use generic field names like F1, F2, F3 because they are considering the data at a specific "Start Data Import on Line" number and the "First Row Contains Field names" is unchecked:

With a recent patch (I assume), the generic field references are now Field_1, Field_2, Field_3, etc. and it's causing all sorts of problems with the existing tools that are looking for the F1, F2, F3, etc.'s.

We're going to ignore the fact that I'm sitting on v2023.1 for the moment 😅

Does anything know of a way to force these to go back to the F#-style or do I need to revise the workflows to conform to the Field_# style...

Developer

Input

Accepted answers

abacon

@jrlindem Would this work? Throw a dynamic rename right after the input tool to replace each column header's "Field_" with F? Making it conform to your other tools.

I don't know of a way to change the default header name created in the settings so you don't have to add a tool but there might be and I am missing it.

Bacon

NeoInfiniTech

To my knowledge, the naming for the columns with null header names will have the root name "Field_" if they are in CSV format, and "F" if they are in Excel format. It shouldn't change based on the Alteryx Designer version used, but rather the input format.

All comments

abacon

@jrlindem Would this work? Throw a dynamic rename right after the input tool to replace each column header's "Field_" with F? Making it conform to your other tools.

I don't know of a way to change the default header name created in the settings so you don't have to add a tool but there might be and I am missing it.

Bacon

jrlindem

@abacon yes... it does work, lol. Was just trying to avoid having to add tools for something that is a backend change affecting the workflow(s).

Going leave this "open" for a bit to see if other ideas come around, but otherwise, this is the solution that I'll likely leverage.

Thanks for the quick response, -Jay

abacon

@jrlindem Yeah I would want to avoid that too, ideally you can make a setting change and not have to add anything.

Bacon

NeoInfiniTech

jrlindem

Yes, @NeoInfiniTech I believe you are correct on that. I looked back on the history of this workflow and it appears the source data switched from .xlsx to .csv. This is likely the culprit for my immediate issue. @abacon's recommendation does help future-proof'ing the process by helping the workflow avoid needing modifications regardless of the input format, which is helpful also.

I think I'm good for now. Thank you both. -Jay

Quick Links

This months top contributors

atcodedog05 19458

Qiu 15866

binu_acs 15708

MarqueeCrew 13708

apathetichell 13703