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.
The 2022.1.1.30569 Patch/Minor release has been removed from the Download Portal due to a missing signature in some of the included files. This causes the files to not be recognized as valid files provided by Alteryx and might trigger warning messages by some 3rd party programs.
If you installed the 2022.1.1.30569 release, we recommend that you reinstall the patch.
This is a QoL-request, and I love me some QoL-updates!
While I'm developing I often need the output of a workflow as input for the next phase of my development. For example: an API run returns job location, status, and authentication ids. I want to use these in a new workflow to start experimenting what'll work best. Because of the experimenting part, I always do this in a new workflow and not cache and continue in my main flow.
Writing a temporary output file always feels like unnescesary steps, and tbh I don't want to write a file for a step that'll be gone before it reaches production. Esp if there is sensitive information in it.
I often need to create a record ID that automatically increments but grouped by a specific field. I currently do it using the Multi-Row Formula tool doing [Field-1:ID]+1 because there is no group by option in the Record ID tool.
Also, sometimes I need to start at 0 but the Multi-Row Formula tool doesn't allow this so I have to use a Formula tool right after to subtract 1.
So adding a group by option to the Record ID tool would allow the user not to use the multi-row formula to do this and to start at any value wanted.
As each version of Alteryx is rolled out, it would be much easier for our users and admin team to validate the new version, if Alteryx allowed parallel installs of many different versions of the software.
So - our team is currently on 11.3 - if we could roll out 11.5 in parallel then we could very easily allow users to revert to 11.3 if there are issues, or else remove 11.3 after 2-3 weeks if no issues.
When creating a workflow I generally open a "TEMPLATE" first and then immediately save it to the "NEW WORKFLOW NAME". My template includes all my preferences that aren't set naturally within the user settings and won't get RESET by them either. It has a comment box and containers as well as logos and copyrights. It would be nice to have ready access to this feature. Maybe others have standards that they want applied to all users and their workflows too.
As an analyst in a large team, there has been occasions when multiple users are editing the same workflow resulting in duplicated efforts and overwritten work.
This is particularly an issue with remote working when it's not so easy or instant to ask your colleagues "Are you working on X?"
Having a notification pop-up (like the MS example below) would be extremely helpful in order to know if another user is already accessing the workflow so multiple users do not end up editing the same workflow independently.
We frequently have issues where users report slowness from an Alteryx installation on a particular machine; or where a specific tool or package fails to install correctly.
For our admin teams - this becomes a debugging exercise to go through different permutations to understand the cause - and if this is escallated to Alteryx Support, this becomes even tougher.
Could we think about including a basic "Self Diagnostic" in to Alteryx which runs through the basic functionalities of Alteryx with some basic timings; checks that Python is working correctly; checks the memory allocation and temporary disk space - and then either persists this to disk and/or sends to a central environment for analysis?
Given a large deployed environment like ours (over 10 000 seats deployed) - self-checkout-telemetry like this would provide the central team with massive increase in their ability to manage the deployed base; and at the same time signficantly reduce the time to resolve support issues.
The Problem: Sometimes we are developing workflows where we use a data connection that the developer has access to but not necessarily the people running the workflow do.
A workflow is pulling from one database to another, with some specific transformations.
This workflow is used by many people, some have Designer for other purposes.
The workflow also writes to a log table, documenting different parts of the workflow for auditing purposes.
This log table is not something that the people running the workflow should have access to write to other than when running this workflow
This log table outputs using a data connection so that it is not embedding passwords (a company-wide best practice)
For someone to run this workflow with this set up, they would need access to this log table's data connection
If the log table data connection is shared to that group of users, now any of the users with Designer can go write whatever they would like to that table since that data connection has access to.
This also makes the log table unsecure for auditing purposes.
The Solution: We are looking for a way to have a data connection in a workflow without giving all of the running users full access to use that connection in their workflows. Almost a proposal of two tiers of permissions:
Access to use a data connection in a workflow you are running
Access to use a data connection in a workflow you are building
I'm involved in testing new data source called Yellowbrick at Zurich North America. We are replacing Netezza with Yellowbrick as our single data source for all data marts. Currently in our Alteryx designer version 2021.2, we do not have Yellowbrick as one of the data sources, and we had to use the "PostgreSQL" to test the connection to new Yellowbrick data source.
Could you or someone please add Yellowbrick to one of the available data sources so that it'll be easier for our Alteryx users to find that data source rather than go to that confusing "PostgreSQL"?
Current issue with Alteryx Software is that each time an Alteryx file is opened it tries to establish a connection with Database or File. This results in:
Lockout situations when Enterprise password is changed
No ability to share Alteryx Workflows with Colleagues (when they open it will have author of files credentials resulting in locking out author)
Countless phone calls with Enterprise IT to reset password.
Should be a feature/enhancement that we can either toggle on/off whether we want our flows to establish connection with data source/file when we first open the Alteryx file. This toggle would save countless time and effort from developers when working with secured connections that require credentials.
Upper management do not get to be part of the workflow build. When presenting the final product to them as the current solution in pdf print, they complain about the size and the legibility of the workflow. I propose that Alteryx Team could do some enhancement about this feature where large workflows can be automatically printed with minimal effort where the containers would not break in halves or at ends. It does look confusing for someone who has never seen the workflow before or know what it does. Currently, if we change the settings to any format and any settings, you do see some containers that break and continues on the following page. However, best practice would be to print any workflow without doing a lot of manipulation in the settings and all have few or every container(s) printed on different page(s).
I hope my explanation above made sense to what the ultimate solution should look like. Thanks!