Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

I have encountered problem with Oracle Direct Connection tool. I have the correct host, port, service name, user name and password (the same configuration works with Toad), but Alteryx still complaints the service name is not found on tnsnames.ora (ORA-12154). Well, the reason to use Direct Connection is that I do not have admin rights on my computer to edit the file, so it seems this kind of problem can only be resolved by reaching out to our IT service to edit tnsnames.ora for me.

I would like to able to limit the data being read from the source based on the volume , such as 10GB or 5 GB etc. This will help in case of POC's where we can process portion of the dataset and not the entire dataset. This will have many different used cases as well.

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.

Just ran into this today.  I was editing a local file that is referenced in a workflow for input.

When I tried to open the workflow, Alteryx hangs.

When I closed the input file, Alteryx finished loading the workflow.

If the workflow is trying to run, I can understand this behavior but it seems odd when opening the workflow.

@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.

We are big fans of the In-Database Tools and use them A LOT to speed up workflows that are dealing with large record counts, joins etc.

This is all fine, within the constraints of the database language, but an annoyance is that the workflow is harder to read, and looks messy and complicated.

A potential solution would be to have the bottom half of the icon all blue as is, but the top half to show the originaling palette for that tool.

ie  Connect In-DB - Green/Dark Blue

Filter In-DB - Light Blue/Dark Blue

Join In-DB - Purple/Dark Blue

etc.

in-DB workflows would then look as cool as they are !

Thanks

dan

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.

When using "Find and Replace", the content of the search term field ("Find") is cleared when switching between workflow windows. From my perspective, there's no reason for that. Why does Alteryx Designer decide that I don't want to search for the same term in another workflow?

Please change that behaviour that content in "Find", "Search Locations", and "Replace:" are preserved when switching between Designer windows.

Hello

Cartesian product is a common issue when joining dataset with a bad key. What I suggest is an option to check if there will be a cartesian product on the join tool.

-there is a label "Cartesian product (non join key uniqueness) detection"
-under it a drop down menu with three choices
-do nothing
-fail
-warning

Algo :
if do nothing==> well... do nothing more than actual behaviour.
if "fail" or "warning" : count distinct of join key versus count row on each side of the join. If none is unique, display a warning or an error message.

Best regards,

Simon

Hello,

This is a feature I haven't seen in any data prepation/etl. The core feature is to detect the unique key in a dataframe. More than often, you have to deal with a dataset without knowing what's make a row unique. This can lead to misinterpret the data, cartesian product at join and other funny stuff.

How do I imagine that ?

a specific tool in the Data Investigation category

Entry; one dataframe, ability to select fields or check all, ability to specify a max number of field for combination (empty or 0=no max).
Algo : it tests the count distinct every combination of field versus the count of rows

Result : one row by field combination that works. If no result : "no field combination is unique. check for duplicate or need for aggregation upstream".

ex :

order_id line_id amount customer site

The user will select every field but excluding Amount (he knows that Amount would have no sense in key)

The algo will test the following key
-each separate field
-each combination of two fields
-each combination of three fields
-each combination of four fields

to match the number of row (7)
And gives something like that

choice number of fields field combination

Best regards,

Simon

Cache function is very useful when executing very long db request.

I'd like to see a checkbox option (in workflow runtime settings for example) to enable/disable automatic caching of first execution for all inputs tools.

I have a sales column in my dataset that includes both a dollar sign and a period (e.g., '$320,000.00'). When I use the data cleaning tool and select 'Remove unwanted characters' with the punctuation checkbox, it removes both the dollar sign and the period. However, I only want to remove the dollar sign. It would be great if @Alteryx could allow users to specify which character they want to remove after selecting the punctuation checkbox. Thanks!

Hello team,

It would be really nice if user interface tool can be set with a default set up that will flow into the connected tool. Currently it will always been blank as no data flow in.

There are ways to bypass it as run the automation in Open Debug, but then if you want to amend the the automation you need to go back to the original WF and then run it again with Open Debug.

Of course you can set a static data for these fields however then you must remove them before saving it to the Gallery, which might create future errors if you are forgetting to delete the static data.

So if I added a Select Date, it will be nice if it will be possible to select a data in that tool and that date will reflected in the WF. It is less an issue at the development part as normally at that stage these tools will not be set up, however when you need to upgrade existing WF or amend one due to changes, that's were it will be very handy and will save a lot of time.

Improve the user experience by enable search filtering options in browse tool result just as in the canvas. See attached pics.