Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Hello, I am very new to Alteryx, so my suggestion might appear elementary for the veteran-users. From the standpoint of adoptation by less technical people (moving from Excel to Alteryx), would it be possible to take common scenarios of Fuzzy Matching and automate them?

For example, if you have 2 databases and you want to match and clean them up, you have to have close to 10 steps, with sorting, adding unique identifiers, joining, fuzzy matching, etc. Just look at your video named "Fuzzy Matching" or other videos for Tableau+Alteryx. They idea is basic. If you know most common use cases and you have already developed a methodology for how to solve these cases, why not have them as part of the tools library?

Also, when matching, for example universities, wouldn't it be easier if all those common, aka appearing many times, words were automatically suggested to be removed from the "match". Example: University A and Univeristy B are two different Universities, but they share the common word "University". While it's important that this word is there, it is not the reason to pair these two together. Maually going through and identifying and typing these common words is an extra step. It would be much easier to have a pop list of these common words and the count of records in which they appear, sorted by the count, and a check box to include or exclude the words.

Thank you,

Olga

Link to the Fuzzy Matching video. Check Minute 9:41.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlZiM2YSCCY&index=13&list=PLfSLx4WE4q52YoGEzJEBalfNou6jfRTF0&nohtml5...

Hi,

I am sure that I can't be the only person that would be interested in an output tool that allows categorical fields on both axes.  THis would allow you to visualise the following example and I would suggest that this was either similar to the heatmap with boxes or the colour / size of the entry was determined by a third numerical value - such as 'Confidence' from the table below.  THere might be ways to extend the idea as well as having a fourth parameter that puts text in the box or another number but it would be useful and not too hard I am sure.

Many thanks in advance for considering this,

Peter

It may just be me, but after I upgraded to 2018.2, the Table/Query edit window doesn't take up the full window when I maximize the parent window. 

I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, maybe it's just me.  See attached.

Hi everybody! As you can read here I had the necessity to insert a macro (publish to tableau server) at the end of a self-made app.

I have actually found 2 different ways to solve the problem:

1) Turn the macro into an app and use 2 chained apps.

2) Copy and paste tools (normal and interface) from the macro to my app.

Both solution work, but both require some (quite a lot to be honest) editing and re-work that actually is already done. It's kind of like to re-invent the wheel!

A quick way to merge 2 configuration interfaces would be really usefull.

I am parsing retailer promotions and have two input strings:

1. take a further 10%
2. take an additional 10%

I am using the regex parse tool to parse out the discount value, using the following regex:

further|additional (\d+)%

When the input contains examples of both options (i.e 'further' and 'additional'), the tool only seems to parse the first one encountered.

E.g if I state the regex string as:

further|additional (\d+)%

It only parses line 1 above

And if I state the regex string as:

additional|further (\d+)%

It only parse line 2

Create a standardized Mailbox application that could bolt onto Alteryx Server, to handle incoming attachments from sources like a Service Desk (Service Now for example) and other applications.

Essentially anything that regularly exports data in the form of an emailed attachments to which Alteryx could, using a series of predefined user rules and a designated email address, put those attachments into various directories ready for processing by automated Alteryx workflows.

This would save a huge amount of time as people currently have to manually drag and drop files. At least the on board Alteryx designers here haven't been able to come with a solution. Would also save any messy programming around systems like Outlook and bending any security issues within those systems. Many, many other applications have this simple feature built in to their products, especially service desks. I believe there would be a huge benefit to this very simple bolt on.

Hey guys!!

I was just thinking... they might not need to fully build out a python ide, but could still reach the same objective.

You should be able to keep a python file on its own and call it in r.  By doing this, you might be able to have the json/xml handling of python with the visual/stats power of R while it being nicely bundled in your workflow.  This uses base functions in r and does a good job turning a pandas dataset to an r dataframe you can move along your workflow.

You could always just use this same idea to write a file somewhere and once it's written, your workflow will continue.  If you do, the code is literally 1 line in r...  Anyway, let me know your thoughts! 🙂

Will this work for your organization?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/using-python-r-windows-7-subhash-jaini?trk=hp-feed-article-title-publ...

There is a great functionality in Excel that lets users "seek" a value that makes whatever chain of formulas you might have work out to a given value. Here's what Microsoft explains about goal seek: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Use-Goal-Seek-to-find-a-result-by-adjusting-an-input-value-...

My specific example was this:

In the excel (attached), all you have to do is click on the highlighted blue cell, select the “data” tab up top and then “What-if analysis” and finally “goal seek.” Then you set the dialogue box up to look like this:

 Set cell: G9

To Value: 330

By changing cell" J6

And hit “Okay.” Excel then iteratively finds the value for the cell J6 that makes the cell G9 equal 330. Can I build a module that will do the same thing? I’m figuring I wouldn’t have to do it iteratively, if I could build the right series of formulas/commands. You can see what I’m trying to accomplish in the formulas I’ve built in Excel, but essentially I’m trying to build a model that will tell me what the % Adjustment rate should be for the other groups when I’ve picked the first adjustment rate, and the others need to change proportionally to their contribution to the remaining volume.

There doesn't really seem to be a way to do this in Alteryx that I can see. I hate to think there is something that excel can do that Alteryx can't!

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.

Submitting this idea from a different category as I couldn't find an appropriate category.

I think that it is important to have an offline documentation in either PDF or HTML format (or both) with each major release (or minor release where new features are introduced, such as Alteryx Designer 2025.1.2) for at least the on-prem products (such as Designer and Server) for the use cases or scenarios where either internet connectivity might be limited or non-existent or the user might want to access a part of the documentation quickly (especially in PDF format though searching from the index, where one wouldn't have to navigate between web pages).

It would be great to have the new expression editor in the Interface tools such as Action and Error Message to have the modern expression editor, not only for highlighting and autocomplete but also the "preview result for the first row" (which is the only row when you are writing an expression for an Interface tool.

I think that the addition of this feature is especially necessary because of the "Update Raw XML with Formula" feature, which requires you to clearly be able to see the output of your formula, which in turn usually requires you to first test the XML in a separate workflow with a Text Input tool.

Additional formatting functionality would be great to see in the Interface Designer.

First off, I want to acknowledge other submitted ideas (vote for them too!):

• Allow Drag and Drop in Interface Designer - Alteryx Community
• Alteryx Interface Designer - Place Element Where S... - Alteryx Community

Both of these are great suggestions and I want to show support of them as well!

To take it another step further from targeted placement or drag/drop... I would also like to see new objects included in the ADD menu.  We have Groupings but I'd like to see horizontally split groupings.  Meaning, I want the ability to place two Date Inputs next to each other, or short prompts across instead of listed vertically.

Example:

Why this matters:  If Alteryx aspires to be a bonofied contender in the Analytic Application space (which I think it is), then we need added functionality that puts a greater emphasis on the user-experience side of things.  Because as we know, user acceptance, ease of use, and adoption all depend on a clean presentation for the elements they interract with.

If you agree, your "thumbs up" of support is only one click away!

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

When building join operations in Alteryx, it can be time-consuming to manually scroll through long lists of fields to find the right one to join on, especially when working with large datasets or unfamiliar schemas.

It would be great to have a search-as-you-type filter in the Join tool’s field selection interface. Similar to the existing field selector search, this feature would allow users to start typing a field name and instantly see a filtered list of partial matches. This would significantly speed up the process of identifying and selecting the correct join fields and reduce the risk of selecting incorrect fields due to visual clutter.