In-DB Macro Input and Output tools hidden Question attribute

[BetterFerret]

I may have found a bug in the In-DB Macro Input and Macro Output tools.  When they are used during macro development attempting to Create Debug brings up this message.

It appears that the tool itself inserts a hidden Question attribute into the XML which can also be seen in Workflow Configuration

There is a simple workaround to simply remove the tools before debugging but just wanted to bring it to attention.

Thanks,

Dan

[lepome]

@BetterFerret 

There is no point in creating a Debug workflow from a macro unless you are testing how it runs with specific values.  It's true that if you attempt to Open Debug without values, the software will error.  I'm not following what you would expect it to do differently.

[BetterFerret]

Lisa,
These tools have no value, they are InDB Macro Input and InDB Macro Output interface.  Doesn't matter if I have a full fledged interface with text boxes, dropdowns, radio buttons etc.  All the normal interface tools actually show an interface and will show appropriate errors if their associated Questions are not filled.  Input and Output expose an external connection and have no real Question to be answered.  This behavior does not exist for the regular Macro Input and Macro Output interface tools.  My expectation is that the actions associated with the 'normal' interface tools would happen, the InDb Macro Output tool would turn into an InDB Browse and the InDB Macro Input would behave similar to the normal Macro Input.

[lepome]

@BetterFerret 

In-DB workflows are not always directly analogous to standard workflows, and apparently this is one of those differences.  We will investigate the details and clarify how to troubleshoot In-DB macros.

[collin_pace]

Hi @lepome  - you cannot debug macros with In-DB macro input or In-DB macro output tools in them.  Can you please let us know when this will be fixed?

Is it even known to the development team that this is a bug?

[lepome]

@collin_pace 

I confess that I don't understand your use case because I perceive user-settable parameters as incompatible with what is essentially a highly nested Select statement.  Thus I don't see a benefit to using the Interface Designer with In-DB processing. 

I recommend that you contact a member of your Sales team (Account Executive or Sales Engineer or Customer Success Manager) and ask that they request the feature you desire through the Voice of the Customer program.  Alternatively, look for this idea in the Ideas section of Community. If it has been suggested within the past couple of years, "Like" the post, and add your use case in the comments. If your idea is not recently listed, please submit it again. Our product team pays particular attention to ideas submitted by users.

[apathetichell]

@lepome- I might be reading this wrong- but are you saying you can't see why we'd want to create an interface tool to allow an end user to edit/select a Where clause for a SQL query?

I personally use Dynamic Input In-DB and I edit text queries outside of In-DB processing because it allows for easier changes to the initial query and troubleshooting of the final query syntax - but this is a pretty straight forward use-case to me.

[collin_pace]

Hi @lepome 
There are many benefits to creating a macro with In-DB tools. A few examples to help you see where we are coming from:

• A Transpose in-DB macro is necessary to transpose data in-db before reading it into Alteryx.
• A Dynamic select macro helps you select specific in-db fields at runtime and can change from project to project.
• A simple macro interface to allow users of all skill levels (especially beginners and those without previous database language experience) to query date ranges, fields, filters, from multiple available databases all in a single, easy-to-use macro interface.

The current bug in Alteryx that prevents the debugging process of a macro if certain tools are present is an issue that needs addressing, as with any bug.
Is there someone from the dev team who can chime in here to see if it is an already known bug, and if yes, what the expected timeline is for a fix?

I appreciate your ideas suggestion, but I've found that process is limiting and results in several years passing before an idea is reviewed and addressed. For example, there's an issue right now with 54 likes and in March 2022 the status changed to “Comments Requested” without clear communication as to what is needed to move an idea through to solution development and release.  No communication in over one year since that update.  Example: https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Desktop-Ideas/Designer-is-slow-when-using-In-DB-It...

I’ve also tried to work with our Alteryx sales partners without much luck. This bug is one I reported through that channel as well, and you can see, it’s still an issue for several users. Seeing as this original post was made nearly 3 years ago without any further response since investigation was mentioned, we would all like to see more action here. Is there something you can do in your role here to help bring this up to those who can address the problem?

[simonaubert_bd]

Hello all,

As a huge in db user, my two cents :
1/ @collin_pace  have you tried the transpose in db tool ? Yes, it's still in laboratory but maybe one day, it will be supported.
2/ it's really hard to mimic a database behaviour, I get it. But it shouldn't be hard to not mimic it and do it. Most databases accept a select clause without a real table, at least for one row. Here what I use to have a dummy field ( (here, we could use a limit instead of my limit 0):

Bases	Parameter value	query
Most (, Mysql, Postgresql, Hive..)	(select null as dummy limit 0)	select * from %User.v_table_dummy% dummy
Oracle	(select null from dual limit 0)	select * from %User.v_table_dummy% dummy

For several rows, we can imagine a nested query with union, all that without writing data in database, which may be impossible for some grant privilege reasons.
Of course, that requires a small change in how debug works.
3/ However, I'm not sure this is a "bug" as of today but if it's the way it's supposed to work, documentation should reflect that and then Collin would write an idea (and I would vote for it ;)  )
4/ I totally understand the frustration of Collin about everything that concerns in database : we haven't see any improvement in five years, despite a lot of ideas and votes. Does Alteryx understand how in database is critical in real-life and why Alteryx should focus on it ?

Best regards,

Simon

[collin_pace]

Hi all,

I went ahead and submitted an idea.  If you could be so kind as to Like the idea, I think that gets Alteryx's attention, but not 100%.

https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Desktop-Ideas/Allow-In-DB-macros-to-be-debugged-Cu...

@simonaubert_bd 

1) yes, the laboratory tool has bugs and issues.  We can't wait for that to be fixed or moved from laboratory to in-db tools, so we created our own for Snowflake.

3) I 100% consider this a bug. These are tools provided by Alteryx, that when included in a macro will not allow you to debug it.  Debugging macros has not had the attention I think it deserves.  There are other issues when it comes to debugging macros, but I'll save those for another day.  Please like my idea if you'd think this would be a good feature for a future update.

4) In-DB tools are the future for our company and I assume many others.  I would love more focus on improving these tools.

I really appreciate the responses and @BetterFerret - thank you for bringing up the cause/issue for this bug almost 3 years ago!