Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

Dear Alteryx Team !

 

When running an app the actual Analytic App Progress window is not very informative and can not help to know where do we stand in the process.

 

In order to improve that issue, it would be very nice to give the hand to developers to let them choosing which message should be display in the progress window.

 

Minimal need :

• At each macro step : A view of which macro is actually running with their corresponding iteration counter

 

Optimal need :

• Allowing to completely design and name the messages to display at each macro steps and iterations (free text + iteration counter + time estimation ...)

Many thanks

 

Arno

 

I will try to make this short but the back story is a bit long.

I was recently tasked with scraping a website requiring repeated call to the URL with about 10,000 different queries. Pushing all 10,000 at the Download tool caused intermittent DownloadData to be returned with HTML from what appeared to be a default fallback help page.  Not what I needed.  I suspected the site may have seen all the calls in rapid succession as a DDoS attack or something, so I put a Throttle tool in line to lessen the burden on their server.  It reduced the failed calls, but there was still more than I found acceptable, requiring pulling out the failed queries and repeating the same throttled processing.  Putting time between each record was what I needed.  And then I found this Wait/Pause Between Processing Records  Just what I needed.

 

Now the constructive criticism.  I hope I don't offend anybody.

The macro does the job using a simple ping statement inside a grouped batch macro, pinging until a selected time interval has passed.  It does this repeated pinging for every record.  That can add up to a lot of pings especially if the time interval is rather large and a lot of records are being processed.  Then DDoS popped into my head.  The same issue that led me to find this very solution.

So, I started thinking how could I accomplish this same wait between records and iterative macro seemed plausible, seeing that loops can be used in code to do this very thing.

 

I have attached the macro I came up with.  Feel free to check it out, critique the hell out of it, and/or used it if it will solve any problem you might have.  I only ask that you keep the macro intact and give credit where credit is deserved.

 

Thanks for your time,

 

Dan Kelly

 

I have used Publish to Tableau Server macro for over a years.  It works fine when I want to overwrite the data. 

However, the current macros (from Alteryx Gallery and Invisio) won't work with appending the data. Please modify or develop a workable macro for 'Append the data to Tableau Server'. It will save a lot of time in the daily update process.  

Note: I am using Alteryx 11 and Tableau 10.1. Thank you very much.

I use macros all the time, and I would love if the metadata could persist between runs no matter what tools exist in the macro. I've attached a simple example which should demonstrate the issue. After running the module once, the select tool (4) is populated with the expected data; however, as soon as anything changes (like a tool is dropped onto the canvas), the select tool (4) is no longer receiving the metadata to properly be populated. I've added the crosstab tool from the macro onto my workflow to demonstrate that it's only a problem when the tool is inside a macro. It makes it difficult at times to work with workflows that utilize macros due to the metadata constantly disappearing anytime a change is made. The solution would be for the metadata from the last run to persist until the next run. This is how the crosstab tool is working on my workflow, but putting it inside the macro changes its behavior.

We are running into errors on our scheduler if we have multipe workflows with the Publish to Tableau server macro running at the same time. The macro writes to a local yxdb file with a fixed naming convention and is locked if another workflow is using it at the same time.  We like to see if the cached filename TableauServer.Selection.ServerSite.yxdb can be made somehow unique.  

Error experience: 

 

Talking with support this is a known issue and needs Macro enhancement.

 

The "idea" here is, for any tool utilized in a macro project, to allow any configuration setting for that tool, if desired, to be exposed to the outside world, so that when the macro is utilized in a parent workflow, the embedded tool's configuration setting is directly available to the parent workflow.

 

 

A benefit here would be the ability for users to more easily build custom tools based on the existing tools: e.g. send all inputs and outputs through a validation phase of arbitrary complexity, while leaving the "integration layer" of the encapsulated tool untouched.

 

 

I would love the R tool editor to work like a standard text field....it might be better explained in this scenario.  Pretend the character text is a script youve written with the function being at the top.  Let's say you'd like to move the function closer to the script, look at the weird output.  This editor pastes text like we are pasting images.

 

The use case is that I like to break my code into mini functions that I work on in the r console with sample data.  Once it works, I post it into alteryx and experiment with it on a small sample, then a larger sample.  If I have to have a document for my overall r cost in notepad ++, my function, and the console, it’s a little nusance, especially since I usually have to go back and forth with multiple functions.  I am not askin for a full blown editor, I like my notepad ++ for that, just a text input that works conventionally. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SampleFunction <- function(x)
{
print(x)
}

 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

 

when you paste the function (or any other text in the middle, look at this funky output)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
SampleFunction <- function(x)abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
{abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
print(x)abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
}abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

When creating an Annalytic App, in the Actions tab, when creating an action, have the window display the actions in numerical order.  

I would like the ability to adjust the sort order of the tools displayed in the actions tab when creating a Macro, or at least have it conform to some sort order that can be easily identified. I can't currently make sense of this sort order which makes it hard to find the tool I’m looking for.

Hello,
Frequently when using the 'Show Field Map' option in a Macro Input I utilize an Action Tool with the 'Update Select with Reverse Field Map' action later in the workflow. When trying to use workflow debug to test the functionality of the macro, Designer throws an error stating the 'Action ReverseFieldMap: can't update from a macro input in an Analytic App.' This makes sense since there are no user supplied fields names in the input data stream to use for the reverse field mapping. However, this prevents me from using of the workflow debugger. The workaround is to manually delete the Action Tool prior to using the debugger. I can then test the macro to ensure the proper functionality. I don't expect the fields names to be anything other than those I supplied as Template Inputs to the Macro Input. This workaround is cumbersome especially if the workflow requires multiple reverse mapping actions. Not to mention I have to remember to undo the delete when updating the workflow after testing.

 

I suggest an automated process is needed to remove any Action Tools using the reverse field map action from a workflow when the debug workflow is being built for testing. If needed, maybe supply a prompt indicating they were removed. This would allow a smoother transition between macro development and debugging. 

 

 

Currently if we have to read multiple files though dynamic input, most of the times the files error out due to Schema error and we have to create a batch macro, if there is an option added wherein by right clicking dynamic input it gives and option to create batch macro, a simple batch macro with control parameter, Input tool and macro-output, this will save time in recreating the macro every time

Hi Team,

 

Hope you are well. I am currently tasked with downloading the contracts from SAP for my analysis.

Is it possible to develop an app or automation which can go to SAP asks for user/Pwd and download the contracts/PDFs to a specific folder?

 

Please let me know your thoughts,

 

Thanks,

Sri

The Input Data and Text Input Tools are visually distinct, so it's easy to see when a workflow is inputting live (File) or static (Text) data.

 

The Macro Input tool has the same appearance whether it's inputting a File or Text data, so you have to open the tool configuration to see whether it's inputting live (File) or static (Text) data. It would be great if there was a way to visually distinguish these two cases, perhaps even separating the macro tool into two tools, one for Files and one for Text.

 

 

Hi,

 

Can we please make the TS Model Factory customisable to both ARIMA and ETS? I understand that currently it is using auto.arima for R, it would be nice to add the option to customise p,q,P and Q.

 

Thank you.

When the Business Match (US) tool is used with a valid US Business Insights license, it yields low matched results of roughly 30 to 40%. Currently, it only matches on business name and address. It will be beneficial to also provide an ability to match with the business telephone number to provide better results. I understand that there are license restrictions in doing so, but the firmographic data is not very useful unless there is a good yield in matched results for DNB data.

My request is to allow tool containers to be enabled or disabled through an action on a Batch macro, just as they are with a Standard macro. This issue was originally raised in Jan-2013. 

 

At that time @MargaritaW  of Alteryx responded "the tool containers can’t be enabled or disabled through an action on a batch macro, this works fine on a standard macro (this issue has bee added to our log for a fix as high priority)."

 

It is 8+ years later and I can't find the fix. Using the Detour tool was offered as a workaround, but that is not useful in many cases. Looking at Alteryx own tools developed with macros, Tool Container activation/de-activation is used much more frequently than the Detour tool.

 

For my particular use case, we receive sets of four files from multiple customers each week. Each file in the set has a different structure.

 

Requirement:

1. Process each file in a directory, one at a time.

2. Activate/utilize one Input tool based on the file type

3. Execute a file specific workflow 

 

Here is a link to the original issue that was marked as "solved". The Detour tool workaround does not constitute a solution.

Solved: Enable tool container in batch macro - Alteryx Community

 

Alteryx please follow through on this 8-year old high priority issue.

 

Thanks,
Ken

Hello --

 

Not sure if this is possible right now, but here is my use case. I have a file with sensitive data that is not saved in a share drive, but in a personal home drive so only I have access to it.

 

At this point, I can run a workflow that requires the file -- but I have access to my home drive -- which other uses would not. I want others to be able to run the workflow -- so, you know, when I win the lottery workflows can go on.

 

I know I can lock a macro. However, if there is an input file in that macro, the user there is still a dependency on having access to where that file is stored.

 

What would be nice is if there were an option to embed the entire file within the workflow (macro) which could then be locked. The data could be prepared from within the macro only outputting the desired pieces of information and another user could run the workflow only have access to what comes into the workflow from the output.

 

The owner of the file has a little auditability as they still have an unencrypted version should then need to see what the source data provided looked like.

 

Please let me know if you would like to discuss further.

 

Thanks,

Seth 

The macro input tool asks for a template input that is either a text or file input. A perfect template can be hard to come by and so I wonder if the macro input could just ask how many columns are expected and the type and size that this column should be. I feel this would be more intuitive and easier to debug. 

I frequently have to build nested macros into workflows that will live on the Gallery. Unfortunately, Gallery does not "see" these nested macros when I save to Gallery and manage assets. I have to open the macros, attach the nested macros within through every single nesting layer, save all of them, then return to the main workflow before I can save to the Gallery and have it "see" the nested macros. I usually attach them to the workflow so I don't have to check them on in the Gallery menu anyway. That's why I have to attach the nested macros.

 

Anyway, when I change all dependencies to relative, these nested macros are not showing that they have relative paths. I cannot get that to work, try as I might. That makes this problematic for version control. How can I attach macros using relative dependencies?