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.
I am looking for a version of the Block Until Done tool that I can use to block one container from starting to run until another has finished. My intention is to save a copy of the current version of a file in a separate location before I kick-off my actual process. How do I best accomplish this?
Also, just out of curiosity, how does Alteryx select which container to start running first? I recently built a process with seven different input tools and noticed that Alteryx starts processing in an unexplainable sequence. I was curious how this is configured.
Step One finish then CReW Macro (Conditional Runner) to start the next workflow. From your description however, there is an alternative. If you are trying to prevent Step Two from OUTPUT to a file, you can use a SUMMARIZE tool to count the # of records in Step One. Then immediately prior to the OUTPUT in Step Two you can place an APPEND FIELDS tool where the COUNT goes into the bottom anchor. In the configuration, you can uncheck the COUNT field. The OUTPUT tool will NOT run until Step One is finished.
Alteryx tends to start with the first tools on the canvas, but it does arrange the tools in a linear sequence. Depending upon the tool sequence and use of blocking tools, it runs as far down a single path as it can before it has to wait. This repeats until it can finish the job. This is of course my interpretation. If @Ned were to read this he may accept my version as "true enough". I like to think that it is magic.
Alteryx ACE & Top Community Contributor
Chaos reigns within. Repent, reflect and reboot. Order shall return.
Personally, I prefer @MarqueeCrew's method of using separate workflows managed by the Crew Runner macros. It simplifies the process, makes it easier to troubleshoot, and gives you more control over error handling, where if a specific portion of the process fails you can set a notification just after the F side of the macro.
That said, I once had a friend who hated the idea of managing multiple workflows for one process. I ended up experimenting a bit and created a batch macro with embedded tool containers. If you pass in a numbered list of how many containers are within the macro, the process will iterate through each container, one by one.
I thought it was a fun and interesting project, and wanted to share here.
I have tried to use the macro provided as it seems pretty straight forward, but I cannot figure out it is looping through all the containers multiple times. Is there something that I missed in your example? If you need further information please let me know.