Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Why do we need yxmd files? Why shouldn't the default be yxmz? The workflow logic is the same. If you don't add any interface tools it will run, and it you want to have a interface you can. 

If you start off with an yxmd and then decide to make it an app you now have two files to worry about.  

As a habit I no longer save things as yxmd. As soon as I start a new workflow I save it as an yxmz.

Thoughts?

It would be a huge time saver if you had an option to unselect the fields selected and select the fields not selected in the Select tool.

@KuoL 

Yes, I know, it's weird to have a situation where a decision tree decides that no branches should be created, but it happened, and caused great confusion, panic, and delay among my students.

v1.1 of the Decision Tool does a hard-stop and outputs nothing when this happens, not even the succesfully-created model object while v1.0 of the stool still creates the model ("O") and the report ("R") ... just not the "I" (interactive report). Using the v1.0 version of the tool, I traced the problem down to this call:

dt = renderTree(the.model, tooltipParams = tooltipParams)

Where `renderTree` is part of the `AlteryxRviz` library.

I dug deeper and printed a traceback.

9: stop("dim(X) must have a positive length")
8: apply(prob, 1, max) at <tmp>#5
7: getConfidence(frame)
6: eval(expr, envir, enclos)
5: eval(substitute(list(...)), `_data`, parent.frame())
4: transform.data.frame(vertices, predicted = attr(fit, "ylevels")[frame$yval],
       support = frame$yval2[, "nodeprob"], confidence = getConfidence(frame),
       probs = getProb(frame), counts = getCount(frame))
3: transform(vertices, predicted = attr(fit, "ylevels")[frame$yval],
       support = frame$yval2[, "nodeprob"], confidence = getConfidence(frame),
       probs = getProb(frame), counts = getCount(frame))
2: getVertices(fit, colpal)
1: renderTree(the.model)

The problem is that `getConfidence` pulls `prob` from the `frame` given to it, and in the case of a model with no branches, `prob` is a list. And dim(<a list>) return null. Ergo explosion.

Toy dataset that triggers the error, sample from the Titanic Kaggle competition (in which my students are competing). Predict "Survived" by "Pclass".

Dear Team

If we are having a heavy Workflow in development phase, consider that we are in the last section of development. Every time when we run the workflow it starts running from the Input Tool. Rather we can have a checkpoint tool where in the data flow will be fixed until the check point and running my work flow will start from that specific check point input.

This reduces my Development time a lot. Please advice on the same.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Gowtham Raja S

+91 9787585961 

The error message is:

Error: Cross Validation (58): Tool #4: Error in tab + laplace : non-numeric argument to binary operator

This is odd, because I see that there is special code that handles naive bayes models. Seems that the model$laplace parameter is _not_ null by the time it hits `update`. I'm not sure yet what line is triggering the error.

The CrossValidation tool in Alteryx requires that if a union of models is passed in, then all models to be compared must be induced on the same set of predictors. Why is that necessary -- isn't it only comparing prediction performance for the plots, but doing predictions separately? Tool runs fine when I remove that requirement. Theoretically, model performance can be compared using nested cross-validation to choose a set of predictors in a deeper level, and then to assess the model in an upper level. So I don't immediately see an argument for enforcing this requirement.

This is the code in question:

if (!areIdentical(mvars1, mvars2)){
        errorMsg <- paste("Models", modelNames[i] , "and", modelNames[i + 1],
                          "were created using different predictor variables.")
        stopMsg <- "Please ensure all models were created using the same predictors."
      }

As an aside, why does the CV tool still require Logistic Regression v1.0 instead of v1.1?

And please please please can we get the Model Comparison tool built in to Alteryx, and upgraded to accept v1.1 logistic regression and other things that don't pass `the.formula`. Essential for teaching predictive analytics using Alteryx.

This would allow for a couple of things:

Set fiscal year for datasource to a new default.

Allow for specific filters on the .tde (We use this for row level security with our datasources).

Thanks

The Multi-Field Binning tool, when set to equal records, will assign any NULL fields to an 'additional' bin

e.g. if there are 10 tiles set then a bin will be created called 11 for the NULL field

However, when this is done it doesn't remove the NULLs from the equal distribution of bins across the remaining items (from 1-10).Assuming the NULLs should be ignored (if rest are numeric) then the binning of remaining items is wrong.

Suggestion is to add a tickbox in the tool to say whether or not NULL fields should be binned (current setup) or ignored (removed/ignored completely before binning allocations are made).

I've run into an issue where I'm using an Input (or dynamic input) tool inside a macro (attached) which is being updated via a File Browse tool. Being that I work at a large company with several data sources; so we use a lot of Shared (Gallery) Connections. The issue is that whenever I try to enter any sort of aliased connection (Gallery or otherwise), it reverts to the default connection I have in the Input or Dynamic Input tool. It does not act this way if I use a manually typed connection string.

Initially, I thought this was a bug; so I brought it to Support's attention. They told me that this was the default action of the tool. So I'm suggesting that the default action of Input and Dynamic Input tools be changed to allow being overridden by Aliased connections with File Browse and Action tools. The simplest way to implement this would probably be to translate the alias before pushing it to the macro.

It would be great to be able to use keyboard shortcuts to be able to switch between the different tools in the canvas, or use the keyboard shortcut to select different tools from the Tool Pallette (similar to Excel).

The Join Tool tells you which records did not match (Left and Right) but it does not tell you what fields it did not match on.  This could quickly help the analyst determine which fields they need to look into to determine why there are unmatched records.  When joining on 5+ fields it becomes difficult to determine why some records did not match without manually inspecting each record which is time consuming.  The column title could be: Unmatched Field(s) and the values should be concatenated separated by commas.

*unknown field is not available in the interface list box when it connected to a macro input.

i wish it has the "*unknown" field like in the select tool.
because it normal that the data flow has new columns and need the macro to take care the new columns. 

For tools that have 2 input or output anchors, the ability to right-click the tool and select "swap connections" to swap the connections coming out of the 2 input or output anchors. Let's say, with 5 connections coming out of the Unique's U Anchor and 3 coming out of the D anchor, we need to disconnect and reconnect connections 8 times in order to switch everything between U and D. Even if the tool has 1 connection per anchor, this would still be faster than removing + connecting each connection manually. Tool examples include Append data, Join, Unique, Macros with 2 inputs or outputs, etc.

(1) The green banner saying that the workflow has finished running should stay until dismissed

(2) The indicator on the tabs showing which workflows had run should be colour coded (still running / completed without errors / completed with errors)

Thanks!

The Email tool does not send out e-mails after an error occurred in the workflow. Since this usually is a good thing, it sometimes would be helpful being able to send out e-mails also in case of errors.

In particular, I want to send out an e-mail with a detailed and formatted custom error message.

Thus, please add a check box "Also send mail in case of errors" which is off by default.

Side note: The Event "Send mail After Run With Errors" does not work for me because it is too inflexible. Just sending out the OutputLog is not helpful because the error message might be hidden after hundreds of rows.

as an analysis software. The result window plays a crucial role.
However, the numbers are not left-aligned, making it difficult to identify the number in the first grant.

and as most coding editor, monospace is recommend. it help to identify text length as well

Suggested Settings Adjustments:

1. Change of Font Type and Size: Include options for different fonts, including monospace.
2. Alignment: Provide options for left, right, and center alignment.

3. Option show whitespace

I would love to have the option to easily disable a section of the workflow while diverting around the disabled tools.

I know the Detour and Detour End tools exist, but I think this functionality could be improved.  My idea would be either/both of the following functions.

Break links between tools.  Think of a workflow as a circuit board and the connection paths between tools as parts of a circuit.  With every tool connected/enabled the full circuit is complete.  However, if there is a section of the workflow which is temporarily unneeded, it would be great to have the option to break the connection between tools and then reconnect at a later point to complete the circuit.  My idea would be to have the option on a line/path to break the connection temporarily (greying out the tools downstream) and enabling it further downstream.  It's similar to what the Detour and Detour End do, but without needing additional tools on the canvas

Alternatively, if you were to select the unneeded tools in the workflow and place them into a container, then disable it, it could skip those disabled tools without breaking the circuit.
[ tool ] ---- [ tool ] ---- [ tool ] ---- [ tool ] ---- [ tool ] ---- [ tool ]

Most tools do not result in record changes: Select Tool, Data Cleansing, Record ID, Formula, Auto Field, Multi Field/Row, etc.  It would be nice to be able to tell Alteryx which tools to display the Connection Progress; specifically the Record Counts.  It would reduce the clutter/noise and allow the Record Counts to only display for the tools that matter to the analyst/user.  Right now it displays for all tools regardless of whether the records changed or not.  My hope would be to tell Alteryx to only display the Record Counts for tools like: Input, Output, Filter, Join, Summarize, Crosstab, Unique, etc. and ignore all other tools.

When a workflow group is created/saved, could it by default always open the tabs in the order they were in when the Workflow Group was created?

As of now, the workflow tabs open at some undeterminable order and the user must take great care to switch from tab to tab in intended order. Sometime they are in the "correct" order, other times they randomly appear in different order.