Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

I use the Render tool daily to generate Excel reports with multiple worksheets.The page layout/format is global. Many of my report include 30+ columns of data in multiple tabs, along with a summary tab, with fewer columns.

When formatting the page size, if I don't set "Custom" and some very large number (30-50), Alteryx randomly truncates the headings and any text in the data. If set the page size to such a large number, the "summary" Excel tab (which may only contain 5 columns) is set to the same page format as the larger worksheets. I actually have end-users complain that they have to resize the summary page. A "page format by worksheet" would allow a landscape orientation, with a page size of 8 1/2 X 11 for the "summary" worksheet, and "custom" for the others.

The version of Excel in the "Temp Excel Output" is still 2007. Can we get this updated?

 This might be something that people see as a feature, but if you've got an input tool on your canvas that isn't connected to anything, I'd like the engine (either) to ignore reading the data.  

I often put tools onto the canvas and build around the input and in reality (or when working with large files), the execution is slower than it needs to be with reading files that are not used.

Cheers,

Mark

Can Alteryx create a native connector to connect to SSAS TABULAR Cubes.

Hi all,

As per the post here: https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Data-Preparation-Blending/Dynamic-input-not-respecting-data-sort/td... - there are situations where you need to use something like a dynamic input to query data, but need it to be brought back in the order that you specified on the input stream.

The Dynamic Input too sorts the input stream deliberately, to check for duplicate queries so that it doesn't waste time bringing back duplicate data.

It would be great if we can extend the dynamic input tool to allow users to specify that they wish the data unsorted, and that they are OK with the consequences of possibly running the same query twice.    Even if this is a setting that can only be set through XML, it would still be helpful.

Many thanks

Sean

I am on a forecasting project where we convert one vector of forecasts into another vector of forecasts by multiplying by a conversion matrix. This is very clumsy and fragile to do in Alteryx meaning we have to drop out to Excel. The ability to do very simple matrix multiplication in Alteryx would be very useful here and in other use cases. I realise you can probably exit to R and do the job, but for something so basic that shouldn't be required.

The relational representation of an mxp matrix is a three column table of cardinality mxp with columns { I , J , A }, where I labels the first index set with index i, J labels the second index set with index j, and A labels the numeric values with value a(i,j).  Given a second pxn  matrix { J, K, B } in relational form we should be able to multiply them to get a mxn matrix { I, K, C} in relational form where of course c(i,k) = sum over j in J of a(i,j)*b(j,k).

Vectors can of course be represented as 1x and x1 matrices. If you really wanted to go to town this could be generalised to array processing ala APL2.

Hello,

Today I worked with summarize tool and need to merge/concatenate 10 string columns of dataset with different separator than is set up by default (",")

Current status is that you can multiple select columns that you want to concatenate (that's good) but when you want to set up for all output columns different separator than default, you must set up it for each column, in my case it was 10 columns..

one field is selected (Concatenate option is available)

More fields selected (Concatenate option is hidden)

My idea

Allow to multiple selection of fields that are concatenated and allow to set up separator for these fields. Benefit will be that you can mass setup different separator for various fields

Hi all,

When testing a macro with interface tools in use - the value that is used if running in normal execution (hit the big play button) is 0 or blank, irrespective of the value set for default on the component.

e.g.

• put an up-down component on a canvas with a default value of 200
• Then hook it up to a formula box
• Then output the value 
• The value which is output is 0

Please can you change this so that the value passed through the interface tools in testing mode is the specified & configured default value?

Thank you

Sean 

It's not uncommon to start out with an InputData control, and then 2/3 of the way through you realise that you need to change this to a dynamic input.

Could we add the capability to right-click on an inputData; and convert to Dynamic Input (just like you can on a TextInput to change it to a Macro Input)?

Alteryx gods,

Please can you include right-click options for select/de-select in all tools that have select functionality, including:

Select

Join

Join Multiple

Append

etc.

Currently this functionality is hidden in the menu which goes against the look and feel of the rest of the product.

I know this was raised by @MarqueeCrew back in the day, and I'm surprised this was never implemented.

Please, Alteryx Gods. It would make me very happy.

M.

The problem

When building macros or apps which require a user to update a value in a text input tool via an interface tool, such as text input, the field length does not currently update. This can cause issues when developing things like API calls, where the value can become truncated.

The current workaround to to put a select tool after the text input and update the size of the field to accommodate potential input values.

Suggested solution

As part of the configuration window for the text input tool add a check box which allows a user to specify whether a field size should update based on an interface tool input.

That has bugged me for years.

All the items in the 'View' menu have useful shortcuts. For instance, I'm always using Ctrl+Alt+D for the interface designer.

It would be nice to be able to quickly check workflow dependencies; at the moment there are far too many clicks to get there given the amount they are accessed (by myself and my colleagues at least...)

Quite often the window is only required briefly to check whether absolute/relative paths are used and to see inputs/outputs. It would really improve speed and ease of use if the window could be brought up with a couple of key strokes.

What are your thoughts?

In Render tool you can use a field to group by and use that field to alter the output file name somewhat similar to the output tool.  Unfortunately it is not exactly like the output tool.  Usually you have a table tool and or layout or visual layout tool before the Render.  In my most recent scenario I have several outputs I use the Table tool for to format, the text tool to generate headings and the visual layout tool to organize these headings and tables into coherent sections on a final output used as a dashboard. 

Fine and dandy except a new requirement now divides these data based on client so I tried to find a way to pass the Client code through to the Render tool so it could dynamically alter the output file so each client gets their version without manually creating multiple replicated streams to format.  But the Render tool requires a field and if I am passing a table it can't reference columns (fields) within the table and if I build a client code field to pass outside the table I can't seem to find a way to tag it to the table  and text going into the layout or in some way pass it into the layout tool in a meaningful way to reach the Render tool for use in dynamic rename of output file.

I wish there was a way to pass a field into the Render tool to modify output file name whether feeding it tables or other data or mixed elements.  Maybe a pass through element or something?

The option to "Disable all tools that Write Output" is great during testing but I often need to toggle back and forth and its location on the Runtime tab of the Workflow Config is inconvenient.

I think it would be great to have a button for that on the toolbar with the added feature that it would visually display whether the feature is on or off (so you don't need to see an Output Data tool to determine the current status)

The dynamic input tool allows some fairly complex transformations to the underlying query - but it's not always easy to debug this when it doesn't behave as expected.

Could we add the ability to inspect the resulting query (just like you can on the InDB queries using the dynamic output component?)

It is currently possible to see this in the results / messages pane, but I can't find a way to get this into a data-stream to persist it or manipulate it.

As we begin to adopt the AMP engine - one of the key questions in every user's mind will be "How do I know I'm going to get the same outcome"

One of the easiest ways to build confidence in AMP - and also to get some examples back to Alteryx where there are differences is to allow users to run both in parallel and compare the differences - and then have an easy process that allows users to submit issues to the team.

For example:

• Instead of the option being run in AMP or run in E1 - instead can we have a 3rd option called "Run in comparison mode"
• This runs the process in both AMP and E1; and checks for differences and points them out to the user in a differences repot that comes up after the run.
• Where there's a difference that seems like a bug (not just a sorting difference but something more material) - the user then has a button that they can use to "Submit to Alteryx for further investigation".    This will make it much simpler for Alteryx to identify any new issues; and much simpler for users to report these issues (meaning that more people will be likely to do it since it's easier).

The benefit of this is that not only will it make users more comfortable with AMP (since they will see that in most cases there are no difference); it will also give them training on the differences in AMP vs. E1 to make the transition easier; and finally where there are real differences - this will make the process of getting this critical info to Alteryx much easier and more streamlined since the "Submit to Alteryx" process can capture all the info that Alteryx need like your machine; version number etc; and do this automatically without taxing the user.

Currently with Find & Replace tool you can only select one field at a time. 

I have multiple fields for which I need to apply the same Find and Replace.

I'd find it handy to be able to select multiple fields at once, as you can in the Data Cleansing tool etc.

We've been researching snowflake and are eager to try this new cloud database tool but are holding off till Alteryx supports in-database tools for that environment.  I know it's a fairly new service and there probably aren't tons of users, but it seems like a perfect fit since it's fully SQL complaint and is a truely native clouad, SAAS tool.  It's built from scratch for AWS, and claims to be faster and cheaper.

Snowflake for data storage, Alteryx for loading and processing, Tableau for visualization - the perfect trio, no?

Has anyone had experience/feedback with snowflake?  I know it supports ODBC so we could do basic connections with Alteryx, but the real key would obviously be enabling in-database functionality so we could take advantage of the computation power of the snowflake.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention the topic and find out if it's in the plans or not.

Thanks,

Daniel