Be sure to review our Idea Submission Guidelines for more information!
Submission GuidelinesHello,
After used the new "Image Recognition Tool" a few days, I think you could improve it :
> by adding the dimensional constraints in front of each of the pre-trained models,
> by adding a true tool to divide the training data correctly (in order to have an equivalent number of images for each of the labels)
> at least, allow the tool to use black & white images (I wanted to test it on the MNIST, but the tool tells me that it necessarily needs RGB images) ?
Question : do you in the future allow the user to choose between CPU or GPU usage ?
In any case, thank you again for this new tool, it is certainly perfectible, but very simple to use, and I sincerely think that it will allow a greater number of people to understand the many use cases made possible thanks to image recognition.
Thank you again
Kévin VANCAPPEL (France ;-))
Thank you again.
Kévin VANCAPPEL
Debug mode is fantastic, but it is a pain to navigate to it through interface designer. I suggest a shortcut button next to the 'run as app' button on the top toolbar.
Problem : when I develop a macro, I often change the configuration in the "Template input" part of the "Macro Input" tool from "Text Input" to "File Input".
Doing that loses the previous data : moving from "Text Input" to "File Input" removes the data entered and moving from "File Input" to "Text Input" removes the pointer to the file.
Which is annoying.
Solution : keep the data or file pointer in the "Template Input" so that it doesn't disappear when changing configuration choice.
I'm adding a 'Dynamic Input' tool to a macro that will dynmaically build the connection string based on User inputs. We intend to distribute this macro as a 'Connector' to our main database system.
However, this tool attempts to connect to the database after 'fake' credentials are supplied in the tool, returning error messages that can't be turned off.
In situations like this, I think you'd want the tool to refrain from attempting connections. Can we add a option to turn off the checking of credentials? I assume that others who are building the connection strings at runtime would also appreciate this as well.
As a corollary, for runtime connection strings, having to define a 'fake' connection in the Dynamic Input tool seems redundant, given we have already set the 'Change Entire File Path' option. There are some settings in the data connection window that are nice to be able to set at design time (e.g. caching, uncommitted read, etc.), but the main point of that window to provide the connection string is redundant given that we intend to replace it with the correct string at runtime. Could we make the data connection string optional?
To combine the above points, perhaps if the connection string is left blank, the tool does not attempt to connect to the connection string at runtime.
We are starting to use Alteryx as a full ETL DW build tool (and blogging about it too..)
Compared to other tools in the market there do not seem to be the usual SCD(slowly changing dimension) and other "standard" tools or templates to start building.
It would be great to have a template/Macros/guide to starting to build a DW solution. It is rather daunting starting with a blank page!
When I first started using Alteryx I did not use macros or the Runtime Tab much at all and now I use both a lot but...I can't use them together.
When working in a macro there is no Runtime Tab. While working on a macro and testing it you can't take advantage of any of the handy features in the Runtime Tab. I am assuming a macro will inherit any settings from the Flow that calls it, can't find anything in the community or "help" to confirm that though, but this is not helpful while developing and testing.
There is currently no way to export interactive output from the network graph tool. I would like to be able to export a png of the static network graph image, a pdf of the report, and a complete html of the whole (which means including the JSON and vis.js files necessary for creating the report).
Hi,
when I right-click on an Input tool, I can select "Convert To Macro Input" from the context menu. I would like the similar functionality when right-clicking a Browse tool to "Convert To Macro Output".
Think of a pivot table on steroids. In my industry, "strats" are commonly used to summarize pools of investment assets. You may have several commonly used columns that are a mix of sums and weighted averages, capable of having filtering applied to each column. So you may see an output like this:
Loan Status | Total Balance | % of Balance | % of Balance (in Southwest Region) | Loan to Value Ratio (WA) | Curr Rate (WA) | FICO (WA) | Mths Delinquent (WA) |
Current | $9,000,000 | 90 | 80 | 85 | 4.5 | 720 | 0 |
Delinquent | $1,000,000 | 10 | 100 | 95 | 5.5 | 620 | 4 |
Total | $10,000,000 | 100 | 90 | 86 | 4.6 | 710 | 0.4 |
Right now, I feel like to create the several sums and weighted averages, it's just too inefficient to create all the different modules, link them all together and run them through a transpose and/or cross tab. And to create a summary report where I may have 15 different categories outside of Loan Status, I'd have to replicate that process with those modules 15 times.
Currently, I have a different piece of software where I can simply write out sum and WA calcs for each column, save that column list (with accompanying calcs) and then simply plug in a new leftmost category for each piece of data I'm looking at. And I get the Total row as well auto-calculated as well.
When building macros - we have the ability to put test data into the macro inputs, so that we can run them and know that the output is what we expected. This is very helpful (and it also sets the type on the inputs)
However, for batch macros, there seems to be no way to provide test inputs for the Control Parameter. So if I'm testing a batch macro that will take multiple dates as control params to run the process 3 times, then there's no way for me to test this during design / build without putting a test-macro around this (which then gets into the fact that I can't inspect what's going on without doing some funkiness)
Could we add the same capability to the Control Parameter as we have on the Macro Input to be able to specify sample input data?
Idea:
A funcionality added to the Impute values tool for multiple imputation and maximum likelihood imputation of fields with missing at random will be very useful.
Rationale:
Missing data form a problem and advanced techniques are complicated. One great idea in statistics is multiple imputation,
filling the gaps in the data not with average, median, mode or user defined static values but instead with plausible values considering other fields.
SAS has PROC MI tool, here is a page detailing the usage with examples: http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/seminars/missing_data/mi_new_1.htm
Also there is PROC CALIS for maximum likelihood here...
Same useful tool exists in spss as well http://www.appliedmissingdata.com/spss-multiple-imputation.pdf
Best
Hello gurus -
I think it would be an important safety valve if at application start up time, duplicate macros found in the 'classpath' (i.e., https://help.alteryx.com/current/server/install-custom-tools, ) generate a warning to the user. I know that if you have the same macro in the same folder you can get a warning at load time, but it doesn't seem to propagate out to different tiers on the macro loading path. As such, the developer can find themselves with difficult to diagnose behavior wherein the tool seems to be confused as to which macro metadata to use. I also imagine someone could also arrive at a situation where a developer was not using the version of the macro they were expecting unless they goto the workflow tab for every custom macro on their canvas.
Thank you for attending my TED talk on the upsides of providing warnings at startup of duplicate macros in different folder locations.
"Enable Performance Profiling" a great feature for investigating which tools within the workflow are taking up most of the time.This is ok to use during the development time.
It would be ideal to have this feature extended for the following use cases as well:
Regards,
Sandeep.
Never noticed this, because I always use the custom filter option, not the basic. But I had a user come to me asking why his app wasn't updating his filter properly.
He configured the filter tool thusly (dummy data):
And here is the what the action tool looks like when you connect it to the filter tool:
So he simply highlighted the "Bob" line and picked to update "Bob".
However, since he used a basic filter, and not a custom one, this is how he should've configured the action tool:
I realize that "well, it's spelled out for you - there's an expression section & a simple section in the action tool". But for beginners or even non-beginners, it might not be obvious.
It would be nice if when you connect the action too, it only displayed the appropriate option (either custom or simple, but not both).
Currently there is no option to edit an existing macro search path from Options-> User Settings -> Macros. Only options are Add / Delete. Ideally we need the Edit option as well.
Existing Category needs to be deleted and created again with the correct path, if search path is changed from one location to another.
Hi
While the download tool, does a great job, there are instances where it fails to connect to a server. In these cases, there is no download header info that we can use to determine if the connection has failed or not.
Currently the tool ouputs a failure message to the results window when such a failure occurs.
Having the 'failed to connect to server' message coming into the workflow in real time would allow for iterative macro to re-try.
Thanks
Gavin
Figuring out who is using custom macros and/or governing the macroverse is not an easy task currently.
I have started shipping Alteryx logs to Splunk to see what could be learned. One thing that I would love to be able to do is understand which workflows are using a particular macro, or any custom macros for that matter. As it stands right now, I do not believe there is a simple way to do this by parsing the log entries. If, instead of just saying 'Tool Id 420', it said 'Tool Id 420 [Macro Name]' that would be very helpful. And it would be even *better* if the logging could flag out of the box macros vs custom macros. You could have a system level setting to include/exclude macro names.
Thanks for listening.
brian
User | Likes Count |
---|---|
25 | |
8 | |
5 | |
5 | |
5 |