Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

When creating an Annalytic App, in the Actions tab, when creating an action, have the window display the actions in numerical order.  

I would like the ability to adjust the sort order of the tools displayed in the actions tab when creating a Macro, or at least have it conform to some sort order that can be easily identified. I can't currently make sense of this sort order which makes it hard to find the tool I’m looking for.

As I previously mentioned here, I think that CReW (Alteryx) Runner could hugely benefit from additional enhancements and documentation that would be made for it, especially by adapting certain functionalities found in AlteryxEngineCmd.exe to AlteryxRunner.exe.

 

Enhancements

Encoding

As you might have already noticed while using the Alteryx Runner (also documented in this page), the AlteryxRunner.exe executable that is being used by Alteryx Runner does not produce the log file in UTF-16 (default Alteryx log output encoding) or UTF-8 encoding.

 

Therefore, if there exists a tool in your workflow that could produce a message that includes characters that are not supported by the limited Latin code pages (not including Extended Latin) or only supported by UTF-8 / UTF-16 code pages (same applies to workflow/analytic app name, input file names, output file names and directory names), you will notice that the output log is cut off exactly at that character, even if you use an installer such as this, which modifies the input read options of the Read Results section in the Run Command tool in the macro to read the log file produced by the AlteryxRunner.exe in a UTF-8 encoding.

 

This limits the way in which users can name their files, directories and workflow names, produce custom messages, or render the Runner tool unusable in certain languages.

 

As the output encoding settings are directly stored in the AlteryxRunner executable, this is unfortunately not an option that can be changed by the end user and requires direct modification to the AlteryxRunner.exe executable file directly from Alteryx development team.

 

While not being sure if AlteryxRunner.exe is capable of executing workflows or analytic apps that contain characters in their names or their directory names only supported by Extended Latin / UTF-8 / UTF-16 code pages, I would expect that support to be also added in case it's not already there.

 

Parameters (Command Line Arguments)

- While trying to find if AlteryxRunner.exe supports any command line arguments, I noticed that it is not possible to run an analytic app with custom values (or even if there is, there's no documentation for it, something I have written about below) via AlteryxRunner.exe, so it would be great to be able to run a YXWZ file with custom values (either using an XML file generated while the workflow is running or a "raw xml data stream with no quotation marks or line feeds" provided in the Runner tool as a new option (a text box for XML File Full Path and another one for Raw XML Data Stream toggled by two radio buttons in a check box group named This workflow is an analytic app) added to the interface of the Runner tool in addition to the workflow full path, already included as a text box interface tool). This would save the users from having to generate an analytic app from a template analytic app (at least in some cases where no advanced modifications to the workflow XML would be necessary) just to be able to change the app values stored in the app.

 

As already specified in the Encoding section above, I would also expect (at least) the XML file (even if not Raw XML Data Stream) to be able to be read in using UTF-8 encoding.

 

- I think that users should also be able to specify whether to run a workflow or analytic app using E1 or AMP (overriding the workflow settings), just like in the executable AlteryxEngineCmd.exe. In addition to this, if the AMP flag is passed, there should also be an option (or a 3rd option in addition to E1 and AMP) to pass an Engine Compatibility Mode flag.

 

- As a final addition, I believe it should also be possible to optionally specify the Memory Limit if desired using an additional flag.

 

I also think that the two last features should also be added to AlteryxEngineCmd.exe, which could benefit from additional enhancements including but not limited to these suggested in this idea post.

 

Documentation

Parameters

As you might have noticed while reading the two documentations Run Workflows by Command Line and Runner Tool, while there is an advanced documentation on the use of AlteryxEngineCmd.exe, only the use of the Runner Tool itself is documented and not AlteryxRunner.exe. Some of the enhancement requests here are directly a result of this situation (these features could already exist in AlteryxRunner.exe but we would not be aware of it if these were not documented). While such a documentation would not be needed by the Alteryx Designer users (as those arguments could be passed by the choices users make in the macro interface), it might help better understand the capabilities of the executable that makes it possible for a macro such as Alteryx Runner to exist in the first place.

Dynamic macros that fetch the current version at every run time vs storing a static copy of the macro with the workflow at publish time are challenging to pull off using shared drives. 

 

This suggestion is to store dynamic macros in the gallery and secure their use with collections.

 

Dear Alteryx Team !

 

When running an app the actual Analytic App Progress window is not very informative and can not help to know where do we stand in the process.

 

In order to improve that issue, it would be very nice to give the hand to developers to let them choosing which message should be display in the progress window.

 

Minimal need :

• At each macro step : A view of which macro is actually running with their corresponding iteration counter

 

Optimal need :

• Allowing to completely design and name the messages to display at each macro steps and iterations (free text + iteration counter + time estimation ...)

Many thanks

 

Arno

 

 

The "idea" here is, for any tool utilized in a macro project, to allow any configuration setting for that tool, if desired, to be exposed to the outside world, so that when the macro is utilized in a parent workflow, the embedded tool's configuration setting is directly available to the parent workflow.

 

 

A benefit here would be the ability for users to more easily build custom tools based on the existing tools: e.g. send all inputs and outputs through a validation phase of arbitrary complexity, while leaving the "integration layer" of the encapsulated tool untouched.

 

 

There is an irony in asking for what is essentially the Alteryx version of 'Formula Wizard' from Excel

 

As great as the guides have been in the community, the Batch Macro is one of most difficult to repeat and explain.

 

It would be great for users to have a prompt that recognises a Directory input of excel files and at the point of adding a Macro, having a series of prompts at each stage help build out the desired result (whether that be returning all sheets or specific sheets).

 

It would further highlight one the great features & key enablers of Alteryx 

I would love the R tool editor to work like a standard text field....it might be better explained in this scenario.  Pretend the character text is a script youve written with the function being at the top.  Let's say you'd like to move the function closer to the script, look at the weird output.  This editor pastes text like we are pasting images.

 

The use case is that I like to break my code into mini functions that I work on in the r console with sample data.  Once it works, I post it into alteryx and experiment with it on a small sample, then a larger sample.  If I have to have a document for my overall r cost in notepad ++, my function, and the console, it’s a little nusance, especially since I usually have to go back and forth with multiple functions.  I am not askin for a full blown editor, I like my notepad ++ for that, just a text input that works conventionally. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SampleFunction <- function(x)
{
print(x)
}

 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

 

when you paste the function (or any other text in the middle, look at this funky output)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
SampleFunction <- function(x)abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
{abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
print(x)abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
}abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

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.

The Input Data and Text Input Tools are visually distinct, so it's easy to see when a workflow is inputting live (File) or static (Text) data.

 

The Macro Input tool has the same appearance whether it's inputting a File or Text data, so you have to open the tool configuration to see whether it's inputting live (File) or static (Text) data. It would be great if there was a way to visually distinguish these two cases, perhaps even separating the macro tool into two tools, one for Files and one for Text.

 

 

The community could benefit from easier integration of splitting and applying functions to grouped data. The summarize tool is great for splitting your data and applying summary statistical functions. It would be super useful to take that block just one step further, and allow users to apply any other (aggregate) function to their grouped data instead of just the built-in functions in the summarize tool. I would envision that aggregate function either being a custom function that is a combination of existing user-specified functions within Alteryx (e.g. in the formula tool) and/or even an interface that allows you to use other Alteryx macros on the grouped data.

 

Apply user-defined functions, or other powerful Alteryx macros to grouped and data is a very common operation in the data analyst's daily workflows and being able to apply them without reverting to batch/iterative macros in a seamless manner would be naturally helpful.

 

https://ramnathv.github.io/pycon2014-r/explore/sac.html

Hi,

 

Can we please make the TS Model Factory customisable to both ARIMA and ETS? I understand that currently it is using auto.arima for R, it would be nice to add the option to customise p,q,P and Q.

 

Thank you.

When the Business Match (US) tool is used with a valid US Business Insights license, it yields low matched results of roughly 30 to 40%. Currently, it only matches on business name and address. It will be beneficial to also provide an ability to match with the business telephone number to provide better results. I understand that there are license restrictions in doing so, but the firmographic data is not very useful unless there is a good yield in matched results for DNB data.

My request is to allow tool containers to be enabled or disabled through an action on a Batch macro, just as they are with a Standard macro. This issue was originally raised in Jan-2013. 

 

At that time @MargaritaW  of Alteryx responded "the tool containers can’t be enabled or disabled through an action on a batch macro, this works fine on a standard macro (this issue has bee added to our log for a fix as high priority)."

 

It is 8+ years later and I can't find the fix. Using the Detour tool was offered as a workaround, but that is not useful in many cases. Looking at Alteryx own tools developed with macros, Tool Container activation/de-activation is used much more frequently than the Detour tool.

 

For my particular use case, we receive sets of four files from multiple customers each week. Each file in the set has a different structure.

 

Requirement:

1. Process each file in a directory, one at a time.

2. Activate/utilize one Input tool based on the file type

3. Execute a file specific workflow 

 

Here is a link to the original issue that was marked as "solved". The Detour tool workaround does not constitute a solution.

Solved: Enable tool container in batch macro - Alteryx Community

 

Alteryx please follow through on this 8-year old high priority issue.

 

Thanks,
Ken

Hello --

 

Not sure if this is possible right now, but here is my use case. I have a file with sensitive data that is not saved in a share drive, but in a personal home drive so only I have access to it.

 

At this point, I can run a workflow that requires the file -- but I have access to my home drive -- which other uses would not. I want others to be able to run the workflow -- so, you know, when I win the lottery workflows can go on.

 

I know I can lock a macro. However, if there is an input file in that macro, the user there is still a dependency on having access to where that file is stored.

 

What would be nice is if there were an option to embed the entire file within the workflow (macro) which could then be locked. The data could be prepared from within the macro only outputting the desired pieces of information and another user could run the workflow only have access to what comes into the workflow from the output.

 

The owner of the file has a little auditability as they still have an unencrypted version should then need to see what the source data provided looked like.

 

Please let me know if you would like to discuss further.

 

Thanks,

Seth 

It would be nice to have the option to open a macro from the configuration window.  I often use the find tool to locate macros and sometimes they are in collapsed tool containers or buried under other tools and it makes it difficult to right click on the tool itself.  The find tool brings up the configuration window so if there was a button on that window it would make opening the macro more efficient.

 

The macro input tool asks for a template input that is either a text or file input. A perfect template can be hard to come by and so I wonder if the macro input could just ask how many columns are expected and the type and size that this column should be. I feel this would be more intuitive and easier to debug. 

Hi - I was attempting to build a workflow as an analytics app that could notify the user with a message when there is fallout from certain joins that needs to be reviewed. Not all fallout is bad fallout, so I would not want the message to stop the workflow form running, but rather give a friendly reminder to verify that the fallout is okay or immaterial. It is my understanding that their is currently not a solution to this after speaking with the support staff.

 

Thanks,

Trevor

I frequently have to build nested macros into workflows that will live on the Gallery. Unfortunately, Gallery does not "see" these nested macros when I save to Gallery and manage assets. I have to open the macros, attach the nested macros within through every single nesting layer, save all of them, then return to the main workflow before I can save to the Gallery and have it "see" the nested macros. I usually attach them to the workflow so I don't have to check them on in the Gallery menu anyway. That's why I have to attach the nested macros.

 

Anyway, when I change all dependencies to relative, these nested macros are not showing that they have relative paths. I cannot get that to work, try as I might. That makes this problematic for version control. How can I attach macros using relative dependencies?