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.
At the moment if a part of your python code takes more than 30s to run, Jupyter times out and Alteryx cancels the workflow. This makes the Python Tool unusable for anything intensive and the timeout should be removed by default or be configurable per workflow.
I've made this idea as none of the solutions in these threads feel satisfactory:
We need color coding in the SQL Editor Window for input tools. We are always having to pull our code out of there and copy it into a Teradata window so it is easier to ready/trouble shoot. This would save us some time and some hassle and would improve the Alteryx user experience. ( I think you've used a couple of my ideas already. This one is a good one too. )
Idea: Prompt the user to find a missing macro instead of the current UX of a question mark icon.
Issue: When a macro referenced in a workflow is missing, then there is no way to a) know what the name of the macro was (assuming you were lazy like me and didn't document with a comment) and b) find the macro so you can get back to business.
When this happens to me know, I have to go to the XML view and search for macros and then cycle through them until I find the one that's missing. Then I have to either copy the macro back into that location or manually edit the workflow XML. Not cool man.
Solution: When a macro is missing, the image below at the right should be shown. In the properties window, a file browse tool should allow the user to find the macro.
Currently if one wants to compare different alteryx files or different versions of the same file - one needs to compare the XML files. If you are not very familiar with navigating XML, this poses a risk as one may not be able to identify all changes.
It would be a great addition to Alteryx to integrate Alteryx with Git, Subversion, CVS, Mercurial, and GitHub as this tool is becoming the go-to tool for data processing for data analysts and even programmers.
This additional functionality to compare previous versions (diff) and also to merge alteryx workflows if two people are working on the same workflow, and also to easily see what changes have been committed/ made by other developers and when would make Alteryx a much more powerful tool and would open doors to other types of users, as essentially you can run anything through Alteryx.
I think it would be great if you could manually control the order in which tools within Alteryx operate. Unless I am wrong, it is my understanding that tools execute based upon their configure number. See image attached. I find myself editing my workflows often. As a result, I have pieces that run prior to other pieces that are dependent on each other. I know there are Crew Macros out there that can help but it seems overly cumbersome to do when it can be controlled this way and is some situations these are not usable. Then you end up making multiple workflows that you must execute in a specific order. Just a thought!
Idea: I need a function that given two dates, will return the number of business days between them. I need to know the # of business days between when a sales order is placed and when it ships to the customer. I'm in the US, so I would want to not count Saturdays, Sundays, and US Holidays, but I can foresee others wanting the option to change to other calendars or ignore holidays.
There are a couple of posts on this in the community, but everything I've found so far is too laborious to implement or not robust.
How about a quick method of disabling a container.
Current state - Click on the container, pan the mouse all the way over to the tiny checkbox target in the configuration pane and click disable.
Future state - little icon by the rollup icon that can be clicked to disable/enable, differentiated by perhaps a color change of the minimized pane perhaps?
I know what you're thinking, "talk about lazy, he's whining about moving the mouse (which his hand was already on) 2 cm along his desktop and clicking"... but still what an easy usability win and one less click to do a task I find myself repeating frequently.
A lot of popular machine learning systems use a computer's GPU to speed up some of the math to a huge degree. The header on this article on Medium shows a 15x difference from a high-end CPU vs a high-end GPU. It could also create an improvement in the spatial tools. Perhaps Alteryx should add this functionality in order to speed up these tools, which I can imagine are currently some of the slowest.
Python pandas dataframes and data types (numpy arrays, lists, dictionaries, etc.) are much more robust in general than their counterparts in R, and they play together much easier as well. Moreover, there are only a handful of packages that do everything a data scientist would need, including graphing, such as SciKit Learn, Pandas, Numpy, and Seaborn. After utliizing R, Python, and Alteryx, I'm still a big proponent of integrating with the Python language much like Alteryx has integrated with R. At the very least, I propose to create the ability to create custom code such as a Python tool.
Can we get a more robust read.Alteryx function for mode="data.frame"? If it is reading the stream as a data frame, can we have the option stringsAsFactors = FALSE?
I am getting tripped up a lot because the code will execute in R Studio, but will get mysterious behaviours when it runs within the R Tool. I am manually converting variables to character strings in my R Tool code which I don't have to do in R Studio. However, I'm not a highly detail oriented R developer, so I will miss variable data type conversions and have spent a lot of time going down the wrong path. Also, It makes it difficult to maintain two different scripts for the same routine.
I have started using the glimpse() function in R Tool code, to help catch some data conversions since it writes the output in the message log.
It is important to be able to test for heteroscedasticity, so a tool for this test would be much appreciated.
In addition, I strongly believe the ability to calculate robust standard errors should be included as an option in existing regression tools, where applicable. This is a standard feature in most statistical analysis software packages.
It would be nice to improve upon the 'Block Until Done' tool.
Additional Features I could see for this tool:
1: Allow Any tool (even output) to be linked as an incoming connection to a 'Block Until Done' tool.
2: Allow Multiple Tools to be linked to a 'Block Until Done' tool. (similar to the 'Union' tool)
The functionality I see for this is to enable Alteryx set the Order of Operation for workflows and Allowing people to automate processes in the same way that people used to do them. I understand there's a work around using Crew Macros (Runner/Conditional Runner) that can essentially accomplish this; howerver (and I may be wrong). But it feels like a work around, instead of the tool working the way one would expect; and I'm loosing the ability to track/log/troubleshoot my workflow as it progresses (or if it has an issue)
Happy to hear if something like that exists. Just looking for ways to ensure order of operation is followed for a particular workflow I am managing.
It would be great to make R tool in Alteryx closer in interface to, let's say, RStudio. By this I mean - can we please have code auto completions, color highlighting of formulas/dataset names, and other useful interface details that make coding easier?
Implement a process to have looping in the workflow without resorting to Macros. Although macros do, generally, solve the issue, I find them confusing and non-intuitive.
I would suggest looping through the use of two new tools: A StartLoop and EndLoop tool.
The start loop would have two (or more) input anchors. One anchor would be for the initial input and the other(s) for additional iterative inputs. The start loop would hold all iterative inputs until the original inputs have passed the gate and then resubmit them in order returned to the start loop.
The end loop would have three output anchors. One anchor would be for data exiting the loop upon reaching the exit condition. Another loop would be for the iterative (return) data. Note that transformations can be performed on the data BEFORE it re-enters the loop. The third would be an "overloop" exit anchor. This would be for any data that failed to meet the exit condition within the (configurable) maximum iteration expression. The data from the overloop anchor could be dealt with as required by the business rules for the unsatisfied data after being output from the EndLoop tool
The primary configurations would be on the EndLoop tool, where you would indicate the exit condition and the maximum iteration expression. The tool would also create an iteration counter field. As part of the configuration you could have a check box to "retain iteration count field on exit". If checked, the field would be maintained. If not checked, the field would be dropped for the data as it exits the loop.
This would making looping a bit more intuitive and it would be graphically self-documenting as well. Worth a mention at least.
It would be great if we could set the default size of the window presented to the user upon running an Analytic App. Better yet, the option to also have it be dynamically sized (auto-size to the number of input fields required).
What I'm going for here is integration with one or more well-known source control systems such as GitHub or TFS (or SVN, etc).
Bonus points for the ability to manage defects and/or projects, (SDCL / ALM concepts)... such as is available in TFS or Jira). The most common use case here would be, for instance; a user has an issue that will be resolved by modifying a workflow in Alteryx. Pulling that workflow from Source Control and checking it in once finished with the ability to tick that defect somewhere during the check-in process.... this would allow for better defect tracking and control.
Similarly for projects... building out a backlog n advance and then having a code repository associated with the project, and the ability to knock off backlog items formally as part of the code check-in process, via integrated features in the app (Alteryx) itself. Example: Microsoft Visual Studio with TFS for the source control and project/defect ALM tool is very good at this.
In the Test tool, the default is for the "don't report errors if there are other errors in the workflow" box to be checked. I think the default should be for it to be unchecked - it is very aggravating to think that you have found the problem with the workflow only for another to pop up.