Be sure to review our Idea Submission Guidelines for more information!
Submission GuidelinesHello,
After used the new "Image Recognition Tool" a few days, I think you could improve it :
> by adding the dimensional constraints in front of each of the pre-trained models,
> by adding a true tool to divide the training data correctly (in order to have an equivalent number of images for each of the labels)
> at least, allow the tool to use black & white images (I wanted to test it on the MNIST, but the tool tells me that it necessarily needs RGB images) ?
Question : do you in the future allow the user to choose between CPU or GPU usage ?
In any case, thank you again for this new tool, it is certainly perfectible, but very simple to use, and I sincerely think that it will allow a greater number of people to understand the many use cases made possible thanks to image recognition.
Thank you again
Kévin VANCAPPEL (France ;-))
Thank you again.
Kévin VANCAPPEL
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.
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.
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.
I would like to propose three feature enhancements for the Cross Tab tool under the Transform tool category.
1. Bringing Concat Unique functionality, which is an idea that is currently in Coming Soon status.
2. Adding Start and End in addition to Separator, similar to the Concatenate Properties found in the Summarize tool.
3. Changing the Default Size from 2048 to 1073741823 (max V_WString size). It is common for especially new users to ignore the truncation errors and potentially miss important data that may need to be processed downstream.
Improve the user experience by enable search filtering options in browse tool result just as in the canvas. See attached pics.
I used to use a software before (LabVIEW) and it had the capability to exchange code via snippets or as part of png images. I think this will impact not only community, but also facilitate the code exchange
The management of connections, especially in a collaborative environment is not cohesive or intuitive.
Few ideas for boosting the expression editor:
1) When writing expressions it can be hard to trace the matching brackets. Can we add some corresponding bracket colours to address this.
2) When I want to wrap an expression in brackets ([{or other symbols!}]) I have to manually add a bracket to the beginning and end of the expression. In Jupyter Notebooks (and many other softwares or IDEs), you can highlight a string, add a single bracket to it and it'll wrap the entire highlighted string with an opening and closing bracket.
3) Multi-line cursor. This is a real gem of a feature if possible.
I will add a GIF that demonstrates all three together in action:
All the best,
BS
Would it be possible to Hide all annotations by default rather than each time a new workflow is created? It's a simple thing but can save time.
Workflow configuration
Create a connector for Azure Cosmos DB, integrate it directly into their Alteryx workflows
Include a tool specific configuration to allow for the ability to turn off annotations on that specific tool instead of the global setting to turn them all off.
This would especially be useful for the SORT tool.
I find myself wasting multiple clicks in order to eliminate the annotations every time I insert a sort tool into my process flow, since it is rare when I actually need to include an annotation.
Vanilla Alteryx Chained Apps can only progress linearly, which means developers could not let users skip few applications ( or ) reach the last app in the chain ( or ) let the user select which specific app to trigger based on the requirement.
This can be bypassed by using a render tool with output as PCXML and HTML link of the Application you can trying to divert to, which does not affect the existing workflow in any way.
By using the below set of tools on any workflow/chained app you can either branch the flow of apps ( or ) you can skip a few apps in the chain.
Image 1 - Input Configuration with the flow that can be part of any existing application
Image 2 - Text Tool Configuration
Image 3 - Render tool Configuration
POC in action
Now If clicked on App 1, it would divert me to www.Alteryx.com
Keywords : Chained Applications, Chained Apps, Application Sequence, Skip Application Sequence, Branch Application Sequence, Application Order, Controlled Order, Trigger Next Application
Regards,
Maithreyan S