Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

The JOIN tool could use some love.  Let's consider merging the JOIN and UNION functions into a single tool.  Instead of strictly L, J, and R outputs, we could have an option to allow for all standard SQL joins:

• Cross Join (Warning!!!)
• Inner Join (boring)
• Left Outer Join (saves time configuring Union)
• Right Outer Join (saves time ...)
• Full Outer Join (saves time ...)

Being able to JOIN on case-insensitive values is a big bonus (resisted urge to BOLD and change font size).

Being able to JOIN on date-range is often requested.

Being able to JOIN on numeric-range is often requested.

If we are combining tools, getting UNIQUE on L or R (or both) inputs would also save time.  Most JOIN errors are because the incoming (R) data contains duplicates by KEY.

cheers,

Mark

Hi @NicoleJ 

The idea behind encrypting or locking a workflow is good for users to maintain the workflow as designed. 

However, when a user reaches a level of maturity equivalent to that of the builder or more, or even when changes are required - the current practice is to keep a locked and unlocked version of the workflow so that it allows for a change in the future. 

It would be much simpler if we can have the power to lock and unlock workflows with a password. Users can then maintain and keep the passwords so that they can continue with the workflow. 

Not everybody is on Server yet so this feature is very helpful for control before Server migration. Otherwise it’s just password protecting a folder containing the workflow package, then re-locking a new save file each time a change is made or when someone new takes over on prem. 

A very useful and common function
https://www.w3schools.com/sql/func_sqlserver_coalesce.asp

Return the first non-null value in a list:

We have discussed on several occasions and in different forums, about the importance of having or providing Alteryx with order of execution control, conditional executions, design patterns and even orchestration.

I presented this idea some time ago, but someone asked me if it was posted, and since it was not, I’m putting it here so you can give some feedback on it.

The basic concept behind this idea is to allow us (users) to have:

• Design Patterns
  • Repetitive patterns to be reusable.
  • Select after and Input tool
  • Drop Nulls
  • Get not matching records from join
• Conditional execution
  • Tell Alteryx to execute some logic if something happens.
  • Record count
  • Errors
  • Any other condition
• Order of execution
  • Need to tell Alteryx what to run first, what to run next, and so on…
  • Run this first
  • Execute this portion after previous finished
  • Wait until “X” finishes to execute “Y”
• Orchestration
  • Putting all together

This approach involves some functionalities that are already within the product (like exploiting Filtering logic, loading & saving, caching, blocking among others), exposed within a Tool Container with enhanced attributes, like this example:

The approach is to extend Tool Container’s attributes.

This proposition uses actual functionalities we already have in Designer.

So, basically, the Tool Container gets ‘superpowers’, with the addition of some capabilities like: Accepting input data, saving the contents within the container (to create a design pattern, or very commonly used sequence of tools chained together), output data, run the contents of the tools included in the container, etc.), plus a configuration screen like:

1. Refers to the actual interface of the Tool Container.
2. Provides the ability to disable a Container (and all tools within) once it runs.
   • Idea based on actual behavior: When we enable or disable a Tool Container from an interface Tool.
3. Input and output data to the container’s logic, will allow to pickup and/or save files from a particular container, to be used in later containers or persist data as a partial result from the entire workflow’s logic (for example updating a dimensions table)
   • Based on actual behavior: Input & Output Data, Cache, Run Command Tools, and some macros like Prepare Attachment.
4. Order of Execution: Can be Absolute or Relative. In case of Absolute run, we take the containers in order, executing their contents. If Relative, we have the options to configure which container should run before and after, block until previous container finishes or wait until this container finishes prior to execute next container in list.
   • Based on actual behavior: Block until done, Cache, Find Replace, some interface Designer capabilities (for chained apps for example), macros’ basic behaviors.
5. Conditional Execution: In order to be able to conditionally execute other containers, conditions must be evaluated. In this case, the idea is to evaluate conditions within the data, interface tools or Error/Warnings occurrence.
   • Based on actual behavior: Filter tool, some Interface Tools, test Tool, Cache, Select.
6. Notes: Documentation text that will appear automatically inside the container, with options to place it on top or below the tools, or hide it.

This should end a brief introduction to the idea, but taking it a little further, it will allow even to have something like an Orchestration layout, where the users can drag and drop containers or patterns and orchestrate them in a solution, like we can do with the Visual Layout Tool or the Interactive Chart tool:

I'm looking forward to hear what you think.

Best

There is no tool that exists that outputs all records that are duplicates (those sharing the selected values with at least one other record) and also outputs the records that are not duplicates (those not sharing the selected values with at least one other record).

The Unique Tool is not sufficient.  It only provides the first record of a unique duplicate group along with any non-duplicates and then provides a secondary output that only contains the additional records of a duplicate group.  Sometimes you only care about the duplicates and want to quickly see what differs between the unique groups.

For example, if there are 4 records with the City of Austin and I am looking for duplicates on City I want to see all 4 records with Austin in the output so I can quickly compare additional fields to see what might differ, or if they are all indeed truly duplicates.

Hello --

Many times, I want to summarize data by grouping it, but to really reduce the number of rows, some data needs to be concatenated.

The problem is that some data that is group is repeated and concatenating the data will double, triple, or give a large field of concatenated data.

As an example:

Name                                         State

The above, if we concatenate by State would look like:

What I propose is a new option called Concatenate Unique so I would get:

This would prevent us from having to use a Regex formula to make the column unique.

Thanks,

Seth

I am aware that an Auto-Documenter tool is available in the Gallery, but that has not been maintained since 2020. 

It would be great if Alteryx could have that as an added feature to the Designer as an option for end-users to utilize. 

The breakdown of it can be done via XML parsing as such: 

<Nodes>: Configuration of tools

<Connections>: The tools used

<Properties>: Workflow properties

Right now, the current workaround is for users to export their XML, and the internal Alteryx development team has to build another workflow that reads the XML accordingly + parses it to fit what is needed. 

It would be better for Alteryx to build something more robust, and perhaps even include some elements of AiDIN which they are promoting now.

Dear Alteryx, 

One day, when I pass from this life to the next I'll get to see and know everything!  Loving data, one of my first forays into the infinite knowledge pool will be to quantify the time lost/mistakes made because excel defaults big numbers like customer identifiers to scientific notation.  My second foray will be to discover the time lost/mistakes made due to 

Unexpanded Mouse Wheel Drop Down Interaction

Riveting right?  What is this?  It's super simple, someone (not just Alteryx) had the brilliant idea that the mouse wheel should not just be used to scroll the page, but drop down menus as well.  What happens when both the page and the drop down menu exist, sometimes disaster but more often annoyance.  Case in point, configuring an input tool.

See the two scenarios below, my input is perfectly configured, I'll just flick my scroll wheel to see what row I decided to start loading from 

Happy Path, cursor not over drop down = I'll scroll down for you ↓

Sad Path, cursor happened to hover the dropdown sometimes on the way down from a legit scroll = what you didn't want Microsoft Excel Legacy format?

And you better believe Alteryx LOVES having it's input file format value changed in rapid succession., hold please...

Scroll wheels should scroll, but not for drop down menus unless the dropdown has been expanded.

Oh and +1 for mouse horizontal scrolling support please.

Hello!

I am just making a quick suggestion, specifically for the Formula tool within Alteryx.

Often when I am working on a larger workflow - I will end up optimising the workflow towards the end. I typically end up removing unnecessary tools, fields, and rethinking my logic.

Much of this optimisation, is also merging formula tools where possible. For instance, if I have 3 formulas - its much cleaner (and I would suspect faster) to have these all within one tool. For instance, a scaled down example:

to this:

This requires a lot of copy and paste - especially if the formulas/column names are long - this can be two copy and pastes, and waiting for tools to load between them, per formula (i do appreciate, this sounds an incredibly small problem to have, but on what I would consider a large workflow, a tool loading can actually take a couple of seconds - and this could burn some time. Additionally, there's always potential problems when it comes to copy/pasting or retyping with errors).

My proposed solution to this, is the ability to drag a formula onto another - very similar to dragging a tool onto a connection. This integration would look like:

Drag to the first formula:

Release:

Formula has been appended to the formula tool:

I think this will help people visually optimise their workflows!

Cheers,
TheOC

We all know and love the Comment tool. It's a staple of every workflow to give users an idea of the workflow in finer details. It's a powerful tool - it helps adds context to tools and containers, and it also serves as an image placeholder for us to style our workflows as aesthetically pleasing as possible.

Now, the gensis of this idea is inspired by this post and subsequent research question here.

The Comment Tool today allows you to:

• Write your text and provide context / documentation to your workflow
• Style its shape
• Style its font, colour, and background colour
• Align the text
• Put an image to your workflow

But it would provide way more functionality if it had the capabilities of another awesome Alteryx tool that is not so frequently mentioned... the Report Text Tool!

What's missing in the Comment tool that the Report Text tool has?

1. The ability to add active data records from the workflow to its text
2. Its wider range of styles which allows for more functionality such as with its Special Tags functions
3. Its ability to hyperlink
4. Text mode options!

Now, whilst I understand that the Report Text tool is just that, a tool that needs to be connected to the data to work, so too does the Comment tool (to a lesser extent).

It would be awesome to have the ability to connect the data to the Comment tool as it was a Control Container-like connector. It can also be just like the Report Text tool with an optional input, thereby making it like a normal Comment tool.

To visualize my point:

The benefits of doing so:

• Greater flexibility to the user
• Styles are endgame
• Users can use the comment box as a checksum or even a total count / checker to ensure everything is working as intended
• Makes the comment tool more powerful as a dynamic workflow documentation tool

I think it'll be a killer feature enhancement to the comment tool. Hoping to hear comments on this! 

Kindly like, share, and subscribe I mean comment your support. Thanks all! 😁

-caltang

When working within the Table Tool, there are many options to help users format the width of their columns (i.e. Automatic, Fixed, or Percentage).

It would be nice to see an option added to disable word-wrapping.  Meaning, expand to encompass the header or data within the field so that each row is of uniform height regardless of the option:

Fixed:  The rest of the data would just be masked like in excel:

Percentage:  Same as fixed (above), but relative to the variable width...

Automatic:  Resizing to the required width, regardless.

• It would also be nice to have options under automatic, akin to constraints
  • Automatic, but with a maximum width of...
  • Automatic, but with a minimum width of....
• But regardless without word-wrapping

Why this matters:  When producing automation, especially for finalized outputs such as reports and tables; having maximum control over the output format is vital to ensuring downstream users don't have to continue to manipulate the output to suit their needs.  Maybe this isn't best practice, but when has customer demands ever taken a backseat to best practices!  😉

Hello! It would be great if I could "favorite" a tool when I search for it in the search bar in Designer. Currently, I can drag and drop it to the Canvas, but if I want to "favorite" it, I have to remember the icon and color, then go find it in the right tab. This would be a nice enhancement!

This is a pretty quick suggestion:

I think that there are a lot of formulas that would be easier to write and maintain if a SQL-style BETWEEN operator was available.

Essentially, you could turn this:

ToNumber([Postal Code]) > 1000 AND ToNumber([Postal Code]) < 2500

Into this:

ToNumber([Postal Code]) BETWEEN 1000 AND 2500

That way, if you later had to modify the ToNumber([Postal Code]), you only have to maintain it once.  Its both aesthetically pleasing and more maintainable!

Hello,

A lot of tools that use R Macro (and not only preductive) are clearly outdated in several terms :
1/the R package
2/the presentation of the macro
3/the tools used

E.g. : the MB_Inspect

Ugly but wait there is more :

Also ; the UI doesn't help that much with field types.

Best regards,

Simon

Sounds simple :

Best regards,

Simon

Currently there is a function in Alteryx called FindString() that finds the first occurrence of your target in a string. However, sometimes we want to find the nth occurrence of our target in a string. 

FindString("Hello World", "o")  returns 4 as the 0-indexed count of characters until the first "o" in the string. But what if we want to find the location of the second "o" in the text? This gets messy with nested find statements and unworkable beyond looking for the second or third instance of something. 

I would like a function added such that 

FindNth("Hello World", "o", 2) Would return 7 as the 0-indexed count of characters until the second instance of "o" in my string. 

Sometimes I want to set up a filter to compare the values in two fields in my data set. The basic filter option would be much more powerful and configuration would be quicker if this option allowed this.

For example, currently I must use a custom filter to check if Field1 and Field2 are equal:

I would love to have the option to either use a static value in the basic filter (as you can now) or select a field name from a dropdown:

I want a feature to enable join by custom conditions. Currently, in Join tool, allowed condition is only equality of specific fields and specific position, however, in SQL, we can join data by much more flexible conditions like;

SELECT TableA.id FROM TableA INNER JOIN TableB ON TableA.id=TableB.id and TableA.value > TableB.value  

Of course, my idea can be easily realized by using combination of Appendix Field + Filter tool, but I meant to say is that Appendix-Fields is quite expensive operation in calculation cost, and it would generate many unnecessary records, which is annoying us in case of handling a huge dataset.

I suppose this kind of flexible conditions can be specified by using expression editor, thereby configuration window of this feature would look like the below image; Adding one more radio button option, and expression editor similar to one used in Filter tool.

Any positive/negative feedback on my idea would be appreciated. Thank you for your attention!