This site uses different types of cookies, including analytics and functional cookies (its own and from other sites). To change your cookie settings or find out more, click here. If you continue browsing our website, you accept these cookies.
This is more of an offering and a request for feedback rather than a problem. When there are multiple Alteryx users in different parts of the corporation, it is good to have a common standards document to show all the developers "what good looks like" for developing workflows and generally existing in the corporate environment. I'm developing one for use in my corporation but as a start I used the community references I found (list below). There shouldn't be any corporate proprietary information in this copy. The advice is largely from community but just structured in a "Corporate Standards" type way. It is more of a shell than a completed work. I invite your feedback on what good articles I've missed and on how to do it better. In the couple sections that are blank, I'd appreciate links to good articles and I'll continue to evolve the document for a couple weeks.
Your thoughts and feedback would be most appreciated.
Hey @willhaye this is excellent! Love the work to get people in your org on the same page. Much easier to get new users off to the right foot than working to re-train once things have hit scale. For the Python and R section of your document here's a few of my favorite resources to get people up and running:
Great document! I have started to use the color-coded comments for my workflows. One thing that I have run into with that - when I have a workflow on top of a comment box, you can't multi-select parts of the workflow (drag the cursor to select multiple nodes). Is there a workaround for this that anyone has found?
@willhaye Thanks for sharing your Standards Document.
In this sentence:
Update the size of the string data types to be real-world not the default. US state codes are a string(2), leaving it at V_String(254) is wasteful. This saves space and processing time by explicitly stating the size, less work for the engine.The “Auto Field” tool can automate this process.
I don't think the text "V_String(254) is wasteful" is true.
I've been more intermittent looking at this recently. Probably the best is to add it to the thread so other people can see it also. Eventually I'll get around to integrating into another version but I don't promise it'll be soon. You are welcome to make updates and post an updated version of the document yourself for the community if you think that'd be faster. I have no "right of ownership" here because these are all community thoughts anyway.