We have discussed on several occasions and in different forums, about the importance of having or providing Alteryx with order of execution control, conditional executions, design patterns and even orchestration.
I presented this idea some time ago, but someone asked me if it was posted, and since it was not, I’m putting it here so you can give some feedback on it.
The basic concept behind this idea is to allow us (users) to have:
This approach involves some functionalities that are already within the product (like exploiting Filtering logic, loading & saving, caching, blocking among others), exposed within a Tool Container with enhanced attributes, like this example:
The approach is to extend Tool Container’s attributes.
This proposition uses actual functionalities we already have in Designer.
So, basically, the Tool Container gets ‘superpowers’, with the addition of some capabilities like: Accepting input data, saving the contents within the container (to create a design pattern, or very commonly used sequence of tools chained together), output data, run the contents of the tools included in the container, etc.), plus a configuration screen like:
This should end a brief introduction to the idea, but taking it a little further, it will allow even to have something like an Orchestration layout, where the users can drag and drop containers or patterns and orchestrate them in a solution, like we can do with the Visual Layout Tool or the Interactive Chart tool:
I'm looking forward to hear what you think.
This has probably been mentioned before, but in case it hasn't....
Right now, if the dynamic input tool skips a file (which it often does!) it just appears as a warning and continues processing. Whilst this is still useful to continue processing, could it be built as an option in the tool to select a 'error if files are skipped'?
Right now it is either easy to miss this is happening, or in production / on server you may want this process to be stopped.
I surprisingly couldn't find this anywhere else as I know it's been discussed in person on many occasions.
Basically the Formula tool needs to be smarter in many ways, but this particular post focuses on the Data Type component.
The formula tool, should not always default to V_String as the data type when entering data or a formula into the formula tool, it should look at the data type and estimate the most likely option.
I know there are times where the logical type might not be consistent in all fields, but the Data Preview and the Function of the formula should be used to determine the most likely option.
E.G. If I type a number or a date directly into the formula tool, then Alteryx should be smart enough to change the data type from the standard V_String to Int, Double or date.
This is an extension to the ideas posted here:
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.
Love the new updates to the Browse tool in 2019.2! However, if you choose the option Open results in new window, which I do often so I can see my whole dataset, the search/filter/sort functionality goes away. Would be great if that new functionality also worked in the new window. Thanks!
Can't wait for the new base maps!
In-app screens, lot of space is wasted because components/tools can just be stacked one below the other.
It would great if we could also insert them horizontally.
Tags : screen, app, macro, layout, tools, UI
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.
Session connection to Google Sheet exists for 60 minutes. If someone wanted to keep this for more time then "User Login" option requires re-entering credentials every 60 minutes.
However, we can use the Developer Login0 to bypass this limitation. This method requires sign-in using Google API credentials. This option requires obtaining a Client ID, Client Secret, and Refresh Token and does not require re-entering credentials to run a workflow.
My question - can you address this issue in next release of Alteryx?
Would it be possible to use the ISO week date system, which everybody uses?
In numerous workflows, I used to define the week number of a date with the formula DateTimeFormat(d, "%W") and it was perfectly working till the 1st January, 2019.
But from this date, the week numbers defined by Alteryx are not the same than the ones in the calendar we all use!
Alteryx says that from the 1st to the 6th January, 2019, the week number is "00" instead of "01"!!! And so on until the week 52 which, for Alteryx, goes from the 30th to 31st or December, 2019: the week 52 has only 2 days!!
As the year 2018 begins with a Monday, there is no problem but for 2019 it is completely weird! And it will repeat in 2020...
The rule from the ISO week date system is pretty simple: "The ISO 8601 definition for week 01 is the week with the Gregorian year's first Thursday in it."
Please correct that
I have reviewed a number of batch macros that work well for mirroring the "NetworkingDays" excel calculation but it would be great to add an interval type for "weekdays" to the DateTimeDiff formula ie
DateTimeDiff ( [Date01],[Date02], "WorkDays") where any Saturday or Sunday between the dates would be discounted.
Am I the only one that finds it frustrating that when you are summarising values by dates that all the natural sorting is lost. A good example is using the DateTimeFormat function to strip out the days so that you can get monthly totals but this is then saved as a string so time-related ordering is then lost. Is it possible to add the ability to summarise by time periods (weeks, months, quarters, etc....) and for the natural progression of time / days to be maintained as I am constantly having to reinvent the order.
In addition, it would be useful if we could extend this to provide time-based running totals so for example one tool could be configured to point at transaction data (date & value) and would automatically summise the Jan value and then monthly year to date value by period (selected as weekly, monthly, etc...) up to the max date value in the dataset.
Just a thought,
Hi there, I am looking for examples of financial modelling within Alteryx i.e. Discounted cashflow forecasting - Has anyone seen anything like this before? I've been through some Udemy Alteryx online training, but just can not figure out how to even use the NPV formula in Alteryx. Thanks!
US and Canada datasets are underlined so far but,
Alteryx is expanding towards, Denmark, Germany, France and several other countries...
The question is; Why don't we have Eurostat data provided as well?
Bulk options for some datasets are available.
Even one can get a grasp on micro datasets and Alteryx may have a deal inf this micro dataset is anonymized...
So I was working on a project which uses the "Download" tool. I needed to measure precisely the response time for each record so I set up a "timestamp" value using the DateTimeNow() function before the actual download. After download was complete, i tried to measure the response time by using the DateTimeDiff() function. However, using this method, i was not able to get a precise (up to a millisecond) performance reading since the DateTime format gets rounded to a second.
It would be great to have a way of precisly measure the time taken for each record to go through a tool or a set of tool and having that value be a part of the output file
I had an issue with the ARIMA tool using the R function auto.arima() which missed the obvious seasonality in my data set, but when I manually adjusted Model Customization > Customize the parameters used for automatic model creation > The seasonal components > Alter the degree of seasonal differencing and selected 1, the outputs were much better. The problem is that while this fixes my singular ARIMA model, I want to be able to run this through Model Factory too as I have hundreds of data sets on which I'd have to make this adjustment since auto.arima() misses the seasonality on most of them and produces useless results. Apparently I'm not alone in having this issue as I was directed to another comment thread where someone had the same problem and desired fix as me.
TL/DR version -- please make is possible to manually adjust the parameters of the ARIMA Model Factory tool, or at the very least add the option to alter the degree of seasonal differencing.
And for supporting information, here is my thread:
And here is the other thread where a different person had the same issue:
It would be awesome if Alteryx was able to accept Lat/Long and be able to tell you what timezone that location was in and be able to do time analysis from there.
I'm stealing this idea from Tableau's number formatting, it's a timesaver.
In the DateTime tool if I've initially selected a value besides Custom in the "Select the format..." list then when I click Custom rather than having the Custom textbox be blank I'd like to have it automatically populated with whatever formatting string I just selected. Here's an example screenshot:
Since we know Alteryx uses R for a lot of its predictive and data analysis tools. It takes a while to run the workflow whenever there is R based tool is involved. I was told by a solution engineer that its because its opening and closing R in the background.
Sometimes my workflow has a bunch of tools which are running R in the background and it takes forever to run the workflow.
I think there should be a user setting which allows user to choose if the want to start R along with Alteryx and keep it running in the background.
As it is so important to be able to calculate and present time related concepts in modern businesses, it is not possible to have a better output choice? I have seen the reporting chart tool, I have looked at the TS Plot tool and even noticed that the Laboratory Charting tool has disappeared. So can you please provide an output tool that provides some focused functionality on this lacking part?
When enriching your date data, week information is pretty critical, I suggest adding %w to the format stings as well..
Several month based expressions can also be made weekly, data time first of week #31, last of week #45 etc....
Also came across a lot of questions at our community on how to turn week based data...
Writing the formula is obvious (Ceil(DateTimeDiff([Today],[Date],'days')/7))
but having a DateTimeDiff([Today],[Date],'weeks') is preferable don't you think?
It was great to find the DateTimeTrim function when trying to identify future periods in my data set.
It would be even better if in addition to the "firstofmonth" , "lastofmonth" there could be "firstofyear", "lastofyear" functionality that would find for instance Jan, 1 xxxx plus one second and Jan, 1 xxxx minus one second. (Dec, 31 xxxx 12:58:59) respectively.
I'm not sure if time down to the second would even be needed but down to the day period.
I will be using TS Model Factory tool for running ARIMA quite extensivelty and understand that existing tool does not allow for model customization options. I will really appreciate if we can have customization options which helps to specify order of AR or MA components like it can be done in ARIMA tool.