community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Alteryx Designer Ideas

Share your Designer product ideas - we're listening!

1 Review

Our submission guidelines & status definitions before getting started

2 Search

The community for a solution or existing idea before posting

3 Vote

By clicking the star in the top left corner of an idea you support

4 Submit

A new idea to suggest a product enhancement or new feature


Suggest an idea

Alteryx has different behaviours for conversion errors depending on the type of conversion desired. When converting from string to date data type, a conversion error will generate a NULL value. When converting from a string to a numeric data type, a conversion error will generate 0. Why the different behaviours? There is a lack of harmony here. 0 is a valid value and should not be the generated value for a failed string to numeric conversion. It should be NULL.

 

When I perform data type conversions, i do not apply them directly to the source field and then cast it. If there is a conversion error, then I have lost or corrupted the source information. Rather, I create a target field with the desired data type and use a formula to apply a conversion, such as datetimeparse or tonumber. Finally, I do a comparison of the source and target values. If the datetimeparse generated a NULL then I can PROGRAMMATICALLY address it in the workflow by flagging or doing some other logic. This isn't so easy to do with numerics because of the generated 0 value. If I compare a string "arbitrary" to the generated 0 value as a string then clearly these do not match. However, if I compare a scientific value in a string to the converted numeric as a string, then these do not match though they should. My test of the conversion shows a false positive.

 

I want a unified and harmonised conversion behaviour. If the conversion fails, generate a NULL across the board please. If I am missing something here and people actually like conversion errors to generate 0 please let me know.

Who needs a 1073741823 sized string anyways?  No one, or close enough to no one.  But, if you are creating some fancy new properties in the formula tool and just cranking along and then you see that your **bleep** data stream is 9G for nine rows of data you find yourself wondering what the hell is going on.  And then, you walk your way way down the workflow for a while finding slots where the default 1073741823 value got set, changing them to non-insane sized strings, and the your data flow is more like 64kb and your workflow runs in 3 seconds instead of 30 seconds.  

 

Please set the default value for formula tools to a non-insane value that won't be changed by default by 99.99999% of use cases.  Thank you.

 

 

Bring back the Cache checkbox for Input tools. It's cool that we can cache individual tools in 2018.4. 

 

The catch is that for every cache point I have to run the entire workflow. With large workflows that can take a considerable amount of time and hinders development. Because I have to run the workflow over and over just to cache all my data.

 

Add the cache checkbox back for input tools to make the software more user friendly.

Unsupervised learning method to detect topics in a text document.

 

Helpful for users interested in text mining.

As a best practice, I'd like to automagically change any drive mapping to UNC when saving my workflows.  This applies to both local and gallery saves.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

When commenting an expression (with // or /* <> */), the popup box shouldn't appear as it's essentially free text.

 

Quite irritating when writing a block explanation of logic or something similar.

 

Luke

As a best practice, I'd like to automagically change any drive mapping to UNC when saving my workflows.  This applies to both local and gallery saves.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

As of today, you can pass SQL from :
-input tool

-output tool

-connect in-db

The user interface is very limited, the kind of query you can pass also, welll, not very user-friendly. This generates a lot of frustration among users.

What do I suggest :
1/ A direct button "Query Builder" without having to open a new wf and drop an input box and then go with the presql tool and fight to build a query.

2/ Basically the same features than Dbeaver (https://dbeaver.io ) or DBvisualizer (https://www.dbvis.com/) or SQUIRREL http://squirrel-sql.sourceforge.net/ ):
  -Ability to pass any SQL Code I want (such as update, create, truncate, etc...) when I come from the button, "protected" sql when I am in a workflow
  -autocompletion

  -color coding (The idea is not new )

 
3/ A box "Free Sql Query" that I can branch on a indb or standard wf to pass any SQL query. The Output would be the same as input, just like it would be with a block until done.

Hello,

 

we have several environment in our organization : dev, recept, production.

 

In order to make that change safe we intend to make several connection (standard alias)  like

alias_in_memory_pour_support.PNG

PRODUCTION_HIVE

DEV_HIVE

RECEPT_HIVE

 

In our workflows, we want to use aka:%Question.v_environment%HIVE

 

Sadly, this solution does not work despite the value defaut. 

 aka_et_alias_in_memory.PNG

 

I'd like to see Alteryx allow a second install of your license on a second, personal machine.  Tableau allows this and IMO is why there is such a robust online / blog community around that product.

 

For those of us that work at mid-size to large organizations, there are often strict rules governing internal data and use of cloud-based data sources.  If I discover some new trick I'd like the share with my fellow Alteryx analysts outside of my company, I have no clear way to do that the same way I can with Tableau where I can do it at home not using my company's data.

 

Being able to learn new features and test things out on commonly available public data (ever notice that Superstore data set everyone who gets Tableau has?) would accelerate what we're able to do with the community site here and the larger analytics blogging community.

 

 

Right now the PublishToPowerBI connector only publishes to "My Workspace."  I manage datasets that feed reports for multiple workspaces, some of which are not necessarily personal workspaces (so there is no login associated). A drop-down that lets you select which workspace, that you are a member of, would be fantastic!

 

The workaround right now is to ETL in Alteryx then save the dataset out to OneDrive. You can then "Publish" the Excel sheet to Power BI natively, and the data refreshes once an hour. This works for some data, but we have use cases that need refresh rates much higher than that. Plus publishing directly to Power BI would be ideal.

Hi there!~

 

I work as an accountant for one of the nation's largest firms. In my day-to-day work, I utilize alteryx to cleanse and format data provided by our clients in preparation for use in another program that is very specific with its imports.

 

I was recently reviewing an Alteryx workflow prepared by a colleague. Upon attempting to run it again (with new input data) I noted some data fall out and am now reviewing the workflow tool by tool (first to develop understanding of the developer's mind, and second to make changes where needed).

 

During this review, I thought it would be very cool to have a Review/Markup view, where each tool could have a checkbox that could be checked/unchecked if that specific tool was reviewed/unreviewed. There could also be a circle function that could bring attention to specific places that are of concern in a workflow. This might work similar to how when one drags an Interface tool on the canvas, appropriate connections above non-Interface tools appear, only it would be a view that could be turned on/off.

 

In addition, I have a tendency to annotate the heck out of my workflows I create -- however there isn't really a way for reviewers to do this without modifying the workflow annotations nor adding a Comment tool with comments. It's especially difficult to do the later since space might be tight. Having a comment function that only shows up in the Review/Markup view would be amazing and very appreciated as I don't want to visually alter the workflow to accommodate such comments if it can be helped.

 

It would be even more helpful if a review/markup report (maybe a temporary PDF or .yxdb) that would summarized what was summarized as "reviewed, with no comments", "reviewed, with comments', "unreviewed, with comments", "needs attention", etc.

 

Lastly, with regards to fallout data, I would like to tag/trace a record and, after running the workflow, have the last location of that record be circled in red (or some other visual cue) on the canvas. Currently, I just create a "Flag" column (or, if it works, track a specific RecordID in Alteryx and follow my best guess of where the data may have fallen off -- something that can be very time consuming when I'm not familiar with the workflow.

 

The organization I work for has experienced some of the best time savings from Alteryx and currently supplies licenses to our staff members. In particular our Audit function may need to review some client processes, which may be entirely in some part Alteryx. As our managers attain Alteryx familiarity, they may also want to review our workflows for completeness and data integrity purposes. Having these functions above would definitely be something to look into and would further drive the review function further away from other more archaic programs and increase our usage of Alteryx throughout, and I'd be happy to be part of a testing for this if possible!

 

Thanks!~

Jon

 

The sum function is probably the one I use most in the summarize tool. It is a silly thing, but it would be nice for "Sum" to be in the single-click list, rather than in the "Numeric" category...

 

MoveSum.jpg

There is a great question in the Designer space right now asking about saving logs to a database: https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/Save-workflow-messages-log-in-database...

 

This got me to think a little more about localized logging options in Alteryx.

 

At a high level, there are ways to accomplish this in Designer at a User or System level by enabling a Logging directory and then parsing those logs with a separate Alteryx job.  However, this would involve logging ALL Designer executions, which seems like it may be overkill for this need.  A user can also manually save a log after each execution, although this requires manual intervention.

 

I think adding an option in the Runtime settings for Workflow Configuration to Enable Logging and (optionally) specify a Logging directory would be a great feature add for Designer.  In my opinion this should not apply once a workflow runs on Server (Server logging should be handled in a fully standardized way), but should apply to designer "UI" execution.  Having the ability to add a logging naming convention (perhaps including a workflow name and run date in the log name) would be icing on the cake.

 

This would allow for a piecemeal logging solution to log specific flows or processes that might be high visiblity or high importance, while avoiding saving hundreds or thousands of logs daily of less important processes, and of dev test.  It would also reduce or eliminate a manual process to save these logs individually.

 

The sum function is probably the one I use most in the summarize tool. It is a silly thing, but it would be nice for "Sum" to be in the single-click list, rather than in the "Numeric" category...

 

MoveSum.jpg

Please add ablity to globally, within a module, forget all missing fields.

I collaborate with a team using Git. We commit all of our work automatically with the exception of the Alteryx Alias file. It must be moved manually into the repository and then other teammates must move it out of the repository manually into their local folder and overwrite the old file. This is not an enterprise-friendly solution. If we could configure the location of the Alias file in Designer, we could set it to live in the repository. That way, everyone could automatically have the latest file with tracked changes. Please create this functionality. Thank you.

Please add ablity to globally, within a module, forget all missing fields.

Is it possible to expand the filter function with an extra option to select a field with a filter definition in it. I want this so i can define a filter over multiple fields an type.

 

Alteryx filter.png

I saw that Carlos has made a similar macro (Click here).

 

To execute a filter saved in a record set i now have build a macro. this is how my macro looks like. nothing fancy but it does his job. 

Filter Macro.PNG

the macro is then called like this:

Filter Execution.PNG

regards Humberto

  • Common Use Cases

Hi there!~

 

I work as an accountant for one of the nation's largest firms. In my day-to-day work, I utilize alteryx to cleanse and format data provided by our clients in preparation for use in another program that is very specific with its imports.

 

I was recently reviewing an Alteryx workflow prepared by a colleague. Upon attempting to run it again (with new input data) I noted some data fall out and am now reviewing the workflow tool by tool (first to develop understanding of the developer's mind, and second to make changes where needed).

 

During this review, I thought it would be very cool to have a Review/Markup view, where each tool could have a checkbox that could be checked/unchecked if that specific tool was reviewed/unreviewed. There could also be a circle function that could bring attention to specific places that are of concern in a workflow. This might work similar to how when one drags an Interface tool on the canvas, appropriate connections above non-Interface tools appear, only it would be a view that could be turned on/off.

 

In addition, I have a tendency to annotate the heck out of my workflows I create -- however there isn't really a way for reviewers to do this without modifying the workflow annotations nor adding a Comment tool with comments. It's especially difficult to do the later since space might be tight. Having a comment function that only shows up in the Review/Markup view would be amazing and very appreciated as I don't want to visually alter the workflow to accommodate such comments if it can be helped.

 

It would be even more helpful if a review/markup report (maybe a temporary PDF or .yxdb) that would summarized what was summarized as "reviewed, with no comments", "reviewed, with comments', "unreviewed, with comments", "needs attention", etc.

 

Lastly, with regards to fallout data, I would like to tag/trace a record and, after running the workflow, have the last location of that record be circled in red (or some other visual cue) on the canvas. Currently, I just create a "Flag" column (or, if it works, track a specific RecordID in Alteryx and follow my best guess of where the data may have fallen off -- something that can be very time consuming when I'm not familiar with the workflow.

 

The organization I work for has experienced some of the best time savings from Alteryx and currently supplies licenses to our staff members. In particular our Audit function may need to review some client processes, which may be entirely in some part Alteryx. As our managers attain Alteryx familiarity, they may also want to review our workflows for completeness and data integrity purposes. Having these functions above would definitely be something to look into and would further drive the review function further away from other more archaic programs and increase our usage of Alteryx throughout, and I'd be happy to be part of a testing for this if possible!

 

Thanks!~

Jon

Top Starred Authors