Hi
I am struggling with setting up Action to Summarize Tools connection.
How do I do it correctly to have outcome of Iterative macro set as Grouping factor in Summarize Tool?
So far I get there and cannot get rid of error at the above mentioned connection stage:
(The workflow shared is fed by dummy data)
Solved! Go to Solution.
@Krzysiek, what are you trying to achieve with this macro? Can you provide more information for better understanding?
Hey
I want to achieve multiple aggregation for list of all elements listed in the Input Tool.
The List would vary based on a trial, yet always there is expected same aggregation done by Summarize Tool for all listed Fields.
Say I am using Input with A, B, C Fields listed in its rows, and using the master file it supposed to be Pivoted to Group By A, B, C respectively and Counted no of those records, another time it could be different Fields
After the current stage, I will be inserting the Output Tool to save those aggregations.
Hope that makes sense :)
You will need to do some XML hacking to achieve your ask.
I wrote this some time ago: https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Desktop-Discussions/Dynamic-Summarize-with-Interfa...
More reading here: https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Desktop-Discussions/Unknown-Select-Feature-w-Summa...
In short, directly actioning your changes via interface to the Summarize tool doesn't work well since the selections are not active... by changing the XML directly, you are forcing the change and making it active.
@Krzysiek --- I've discussed this a few times here -- but I'd strongly recommend going for some combo of recordid/dynamic select/transpose instead of what you are doing --- short is dyanmic select selects only the fields you want --- transpose transposes everything but recordid. summarize does it's operations on recordid(group), and name doing whatever you want.
When changing the summarize tool via an action tool you must be incredibly careful with both the syntax of the operations and the fieldnames. If these are not correct --- you will break your workflow.
@caltang , @apathetichell
Both ways seems to be 'what I have been looking for' - I used the later one as it seemed faster to achieve for me.
The first one is definitely worth to give a try when I will have some more spare time for playing around with XML.
Thank you both for your prompt answers!