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

Hi there,


My idea comes when I've built an application, where user select filter from drop-down list. However it contains thousands of records, so it takes lot's of time to find desired record.

In Excel and MS Access when you use filter you can put many letter and filter shows rows that match the input. In Alteryx user can only put first letter, which is huge drawback to my users.


This is how it works in Excel:



Hope you like it!

Macros are GREAT, huge timesavers, but nesting them is a royal pain.

I find I have to create the prompts of the nested macro again in the parent macro for them to be seen by the user.  Could the future Alteryx sense any un-handled nested macro prompts and simply pass them through to the parent macro user interface? 

11-6-2018 3-08-44 PM.png11-6-2018 3-10-35 PM.png

  • Macros

Today, the behaviour of batch macro can be strange.


If I refer to


we can have big behaviour differences between :

-wf and app

-designer and scheduler

Example here with a batch macro running for all lines in designer and only for line in scheduler


macro_1.pngDesigner works finemacro_2.pngScheduler only runs the first line!!

I know the turnaroud (just use a message box) but it's not natural and I think

-at least the same behaviour is needed in any use case
-if you want to do some optimization, ok, but make it an option!!

  • Macros

A common problem with the R tool is that it outputs "False Errors" like the following: "The R.exe exit code (4294967295) indicted an error"

I call this a false error because data passes out of the R script the same as if there were no error. As such, this error can generally be ignored. In my use case, however, my R tool is embedded within an iterative macro, and the error causes the iterator to stop running.


I was able to create a workaround by moving the R tool to a separate workflow and calling it from the CReW runner macro within my iterator, effectively suppressing the error message, but this solution is a bit clumsy, requires unnecessary read/writes, and uses nonstandard macros.


I propose the solution suggested by @mbarone ( to only generate an error when the R return code is 1, indicating a true error, and to either ignore these false errors or pass them as warnings. This will allow R scripts and R-based tools to be embedded within iterative macros without breaking.



I am using a Dynamic Input within a Batch Macro to allow the user to read (dump) data from multiple Oracle tables with varying schemas.  If a table read has 0 rows output, then an error message like the following is displayed at the end of the job execution:




Because it is always possible to return 0 rows from the read, I'd like to mute the error message.  If this message is present, I don't want to STOP the macro/application.  I do however want to stop the application if an ERROR Message that I care about is encountered (e.g. Output file is not defined).






Never noticed this, because I always use the custom filter option, not the basic.  But I had a user come to me asking why his app wasn't updating his filter properly.


He configured the filter tool thusly (dummy data):



And here is the what the action tool looks like when you connect it to the filter tool:


So he simply highlighted the "Bob" line and picked to update "Bob".


However, since he used a basic filter, and not a custom one, this is how he should've configured the action tool:


I realize that "well, it's spelled out for you - there's an expression section & a simple section in the action tool".  But for beginners or even non-beginners, it might not be obvious.


It would be nice if when you connect the action too, it only displayed the appropriate option (either custom or simple, but not both).

I'm adding a 'Dynamic Input' tool to a macro that will dynmaically build the connection string based on User inputs. We intend to distribute this macro as a 'Connector' to our main database system.


However, this tool attempts to connect to the database after 'fake' credentials are supplied in the tool, returning error messages that can't be turned off.


In situations like this, I think you'd want the tool to refrain from attempting connections. Can we add a option to turn off the checking of credentials? I assume that others who are building the connection strings at runtime would also appreciate this as well.


As a corollary, for runtime connection strings, having to define a 'fake' connection in the Dynamic Input tool seems redundant, given we have already set the 'Change Entire File Path' option. There are some settings in the data connection window that are nice to be able to set at design time (e.g. caching, uncommitted read, etc.), but the main point of that window to provide the connection string is redundant given that we intend to replace it with the correct string at runtime. Could we make the data connection string optional?


To combine the above points, perhaps if the connection string is left blank, the tool does not attempt to connect to the connection string at runtime.

Idea:   I think the Interface Designer's "Test View" window should allow control parameters to act like "Text Boxes" and allow the designer to manually edit, or type a control parameter for use in a debug module.
When designing batch macros, there currently is not an easy, built-in way to test or debug their functionality.  There are two reasons to build a batch macro:
1) to reconfigure the macro at run time, just as if they were the answers to questions in the macro GUI;
2) to group the records going in the macro inputs into batches.
If I am designing a macro to perform the 1st function -- reconfigure the macro at run time -- I need to be able to test its functionality in a debug module.
The Interface Designer's "Test view" window should provide this ability by allowing you to type an example control parameter value.  However, the Test View window only allows you to "dropdown" to a value via a dropdown box.  This dropdown box is always empty, thus never allowing you to enter a test control parameter.  I think the Interface Designer's "Test View" window should allow control parameters to act like "Text Boxes" and allow the designer to manually edit a control parameter for a debug module.
I've attached a screenshot of a simple, two control parameter batch macro.  As you can see, in the Interface Designer, I don't have a way of inputting a value in either control parameter field to open a debug module.

  • Macros

Here's a twist on the iterative macro.  Suppose, like a generate rows tool, you could initialize a container to iterate on it's internal processes without having to construct a macro?  The container could include anchors for iterations and for output and allow the user to DoWhile inside of the container.


Just a thought....

We are starting to use Alteryx as a full ETL DW build tool (and blogging about it too..)


Compared to other tools in the market there do not seem to be the usual SCD(slowly changing dimension) and other "standard" tools or templates to start building.


It would be great to have a template/Macros/guide to starting to build a DW solution. It is rather daunting starting with a blank page!



There is currently no way to export interactive output from the network graph tool. I would like to be able to export a png of the static network graph image, a pdf of the report, and a complete html of the whole (which means including the JSON and vis.js files necessary for creating the report).



This should be quite easy to implement. I think it would be great if could we have:

1. A User repository for macros in the Users folder, e.g. My DocumentsMy Alteryx Macros

This would make it easier to install macros without needing any administrator rights

2. A right click operation on a yxmc file (or a menu operation in Alteryx) that Install the macro ie. will move any macro into the folder above.

This would make it very simple to show new users how to install any macro you send them

Both these ideas will make it easier for partners and the Alteryx user community to share macros.
  • Macros
Would be nice to have a place where general use macros or packages could be published by the community and then used within the designer.

Thinking of something along the lines of the NuGet package manager:
  • Macros
Here is a thought I posted about on my Alteryxuser blog: I interested in hearing your comments!
  • Macros

Currently there is no option to edit an existing macro search path from Options-> User Settings -> Macros. Only options are Add / Delete. Ideally we need the Edit option as well.


Existing Category needs to be deleted and created again with the correct path, if search path is changed from one location to another.



Hi all,

Just to give you some context, we have a customer that requires that for every Tableau workbook we deliver, we must add extra documentation, as for instance, for every calculated field, in which views it's used, and the formula of that field (yes, I know exactly what you're thinking right now Smiley Tongue)

So I decided to take a shortcut and do a workflow that extracts the basic (I mean VERY basic) data from the .twb file, so I can save a lot of time. 


Then I came with this idea...


Having a lot of Tableau's under the hood experts in this Community, It would be great to gather some of them and create a Tableau Documenter Macro.


I'd love tho hear what you think, and who's being able to help.


When developing modules and looking to refactor/improve areas where tools should be placed into a macro (for re-use, or for module cleanliness), it would be nice if I could simply select all the tools that should be in the macro, right click, and have an option to "Create as Macro". The option would create a new module/macro, copy the tools to the canvas, and create the necessary macro inputs and outputs automatically. Additionally, the original module could be updated to replace the selected tools with the newly created macro.
  • Macros


A funcionality added to the Impute values tool for multiple imputation and maximum likelihood imputation of fields with missing at random will be very useful.



Missing data form a problem and advanced techniques are complicated. One great idea in statistics is multiple imputation,

filling the gaps in the data not with average, median, mode or user defined static values but instead with plausible values considering other fields.


SAS has PROC MI tool, here is a page detailing the usage with examples:

Also there is PROC CALIS for maximum likelihood here...


Same useful tool exists in spss as well




Recently in Feb 2016, Australia released the geocoded national address file to the public for no extra cost and will continually update this each quarter.

 I think It would be a game changer to build this functionality natively into the alteryx product to enable any alteryx user simple access to it. also I think it would drive a lot of sales for the alteryx product.



Dear Alteryx,

Alteryx 9 new Macro configuration module, is great
One thing that could be improved :

For Iterative macros, it's very frustrated to set a Maximum of Iterations manually :
when the number is too high it keeps going unnecessarily
when it's too low, we are missing iterations

Ideally this parameters should be calculated automatically by Alteryx
It would just implie to have the possibility to declare the numeric field that must be used for Iteration ... then Alteryx could calculate before launching the job, the Min/Max to set automatically the iteration band.

Is this idea stupid?


  • Macros
Top Starred Authors