Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

When in the flow of designing a workflow, I often accidentally click on the help ? Icon on the side bar of the configuration window, thereby launching a browser window, taking me out if Alteryx and interrupting my flow. Would love to have some UX indication, perhaps a different color, that clicking on this icon will redirect the user out of Alteryx.

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

We have to run the full workflow at a time, if you can please think of something like partial running of the workflow and also while designing the flow if we add new tools, we have to run the entire flow again. 
Why can't it hold the intermediate data to avoid re-running the entire code.

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.

I run into this a bunch.  There are some Alteryx workarounds for some use cases but not all.

Hi,

Is there an easy way through Alteryx to rename a file once I have processed it... Would like file name to be- FileName.csv.Date.Time (FileName.txt.20180424.055230)

Thanks.

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?

The layout of tables in the Visual Query Builder should be persistent.  The placement, made by the user, should be persistent when called-up again.

Hello,

It would be nice if Alteryx had a way to create a time lapse video based on a date field.  Create a map showing data over time (day, week, year, etc) that shows it cumulative or individual for each time frame.  I needed to map a set of location points, with a date field, to show where and when they opened throughout time by each year or by each decade, so it starts with only a few locations, then keeps adding the new locations with time to show all locations at the end or present time.

Thanks,

Bob

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.

@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).