We have extended our Early Bird Tickets for Inspire 2023! Discounted pricing goes until February 24th. Save your spot!

Alteryx Designer Ideas

Share your Designer product ideas - we're listening!
Submitting an Idea?

Be sure to review our Idea Submission Guidelines for more information!

Submission Guidelines

Make backup (bak) file creation optional

The bak file that is automatically created (and re-created if deleted) really clutters up our folders.

Please allow us to either turn it off, or specify a different location to hold our back up files.

Thanks

44 Comments
r4upadhye
11 - Bolide

Seems like this idea is under review...

As per my experience, !! Good things don't happen soon !!

Meanwhile, read this blog if interested:

https://dev.classmethod.jp/articles/automatically-delete-bak-files-en/

Prateek_Gupta25
7 - Meteor

Can we specify a folder dynamically to the .bat file whic can then remove the .bak files ?

Good to have an option of saving all .bak files in a specified folder though. 

jt_edin
8 - Asteroid

Yes @Prateek_Gupta25 you could use the Engine.WorkflowDirectory constant to get the folder where the module/workflow lives.

 

constant.JPG

Then you could create your bat file in Alteryx dynamically, to look something like this:

 

cd C:\Users\John\Master Data - Documents
DEL /Q /F /S "*.bak"

 

The example above will delete the .bak files from subfolders too. Better explanation here https://ss64.com/nt/del.html

 

You should be able to find an example (perhaps above in this thread) of how to write a bak file as a text file and then get Alteryx to run it. The Run Command tool is incredibly confusing, so best to use an example. I can dig mine out if you can't find one. See for example here https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/Run-a-batch-file-from-Run-Command-tool...

zkorpacz
5 - Atom

Has this feature been added? 

JamesV
5 - Atom

Adding my voice to the consensus. Can we have an update from the Alteryx team on the current status and any issues/difficulties that are preventing the implementation of a seemingly simple quality of life improvement?

 

Unfortunately most of the workarounds in this thread do not work on machines that are locked down with no access to an Admin account.

KylieF
Alteryx Community Team
Alteryx Community Team

Hi all!

 

In the recent versions of Alteryx, we've updated .bak files to be hidden files, only visible when the file explorer has hidden files visible selected. Does that meet user needs?

If not our product team would greatly appreciate hearing your use cases on this feature so we can better evaluate it.

StarTrader
6 - Meteoroid

Personally, I have hidden files turned on within File Explorer, so the solution does not help.

It would be very helpful to have a setting within Alteryx that would allow the user to choose where the back-up files were stored.

That seems like it would be an easy update that would provide a solution to satisfy all of the users.

WayWayUptown
5 - Atom

Does not help.  What would be helpful is to allow us, your users, to CHOOSE if we want .bak files or not.  Personally, I do not want them, hidden or otherwise.  And yes, I always show my hidden files so I can see what is lurking out there.  Please don't force me to work the same way you like to work.

SBerube
6 - Meteoroid

The original request was to allow the user to have an option to turn on or off the creation of the bak files.

Alteryx comes up with making bak files hidden files.

No, that's not helpful; not seeing hidden files doesn't make them go away, it still clutters folders.

I wish developpers would listen to us.

nrossin
8 - Asteroid

No, making the files hidden does not help. I assume many Alteryx users are also general "power users" and have their hidden files shown.

 

Furthermore, simply making them hidden does nothing to save space or declutter the folders. Making the whole creation of these backups optional is really the only way to solve the original request.

 

I suspect the Alteryx developers are using the .BAK files as some type of workaround in the underlying system and that is why they won't remove them. If that's the case, though, that would be pretty poor design, so who knows?