Union Fails Due to Input #2 Not Initializing

[linlysergel]

I'm building a workflow that uses the same process for my company's six divisions and then unions their outputs to a single Excel tab.

My union keeps failing, I believe due to the order in which each division is run, which varies every time.  I tried setting up a parallel block macro before the union, but I still get the same error:  "The input '#2' was not initialized.

Any ideas?

Thanks for your help!

L

P.S.  The image below shows three of the divisions' processes in their respective containers, along with the parallel block macro before the union and Excel output.

[DavidSkaife]

Hi @linlysergel 

What do you have the Union tool configured as; Auto Config by Name, by Position, or Manual?

Also a quick observation, you have several standard Block Until Done tools at the start and the end of your workflow. These won't actually do anything with only one output, they are designed to run the outputs one after another, so output 1, then 2 once 1 has finished, then 3 once 2 has finished.

[linlysergel]

Hi @DavidSkaife,

I've configured the Union tool by name and currently manually to ensure nothing is wrong with it -  no issues here!

For the block tools, i'm using ODBC inputs and the person who initially trained me in Alteryx said the workflows would sometimes start processing even when the connection was not done pulling its data from our subledger.  No idea if that's accurate or not!  But it is standard practice in my company to throw in a block after the ODBC input and hasn't seemed to cause any issues on other workflows we've built.  (Not to say it's not in this case, but that is something I don't understand yet if it is!)

[DavidSkaife]

Hi @linlysergel 

Ok, so try, if you haven't already, removing all inputs to the Union tool and adding them in one by one to see if it's happening on just the second input - it's usually down to no data flowing into the union tool (which can be caused by a disabled container, missing input and so forth)

That's an interesting take on it! Generally Alteryx runs the tools in order by Tool ID (generally, there are exceptions) so yes it can start processing data before it's finsished extracting. Shouldn't affect the data though, anyway, that's not the issue so i'm getting side tracked 😀

[linlysergel]

Hi @DavidSkaife,

So it's fine when it's just the two inputs to the Union and I know each of the six has data in it, which is why I feel like it's something to do with the order of operations.  I never realized before that it runs based on the tools' IDs.  Is there a way for me to renumber those IDs and micromanage the order of operations?  I wonder...

[DavidSkaife]

Hi @linlysergel 

Firstly apologies but I’m now on mobile, you can’t change the tool ID as it’s set as your building the workflow. You could rebuild the workflow in the order you want it to run but that’s pretty time consuming!

If you search the community there are a few posts on running order, and ways of controlling it.
I think there is a YouTube video someone posted that explains it and provides some advice on ways around it.

PS. Having done a little reading I see now why the block until done tools were suggested; they don’t start outputting until all data has flowed into the tool!