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
Many users will probably follow best practice style guides with Alteryx to use comment boxes under tools to describe in detail what is happening with these tools - such as this one shared by @BenMoss.
However a limitation of this is the comment boxes do not move with the tools, so if you have a well documented workflow but then need to add a new tool, you need to adjust all the spacing and re-align the tools, which with a large workflow can be time consuming.
Therefore the improvement would be to have an ability to lock comment boxes to individual tools (similar to a group function in Office).
New Runtime configuration option.
Check box = Do not output ANY file if an ERROR is present.
HOLD all output functions until workflow runs every tool (cache them) and then start writing to output if no errors are found. If one of the output files fails, we'd like to not output any, but that would be Christmas. Let's just know that all processing of data was successful before outputs are generated.
Maybe in a cloud or future environment this would look like step #1 build cache. Step #2 is load output files. In a local implementation, you've got to have adequate temp space available for the cache.
Right now it is not possible to open .xlsx files in Alteryx that has restricted access to specific users from the excel file, even when you are logged in to Alteryx and Excel with the same user. If it is possible to make Alteryx recognize which users/email addresses should be able to input a file to Alteryx I think it would be a great enhancement. To get around the problem we are currently changing the file restrictions through right clicking on it -> Properties -> Security, but this is time consuming and not a smooth fix.
All the best,
I would love to be able to see the actual curl statement that is executed as part of the download tool. Maybe something like a debug switch can be added which would produce 1 extra output field which is the curl statement itself? This would greatly enhance the ability to debug when things aren't working as expected from the download tool.
Having the ability to call-out via ARROWS/SYMBOLS (gold star) would be nice without requiring the user to create images and call them to the canvas. This makes the workflow even more readable.
Watermarks (e.g. DRAFT, AMP, Do NOT AMP, FINAL) would be useful on the canvas as well.
There are quite a few instances reported in my ognization that user terminates the intallation process since it takes more than one hour and user tends to believe that the intallation process is somehow "failing". So they terminate the installation and try to install again.
A kind reminding message such as "This will approximatly take one hour, and you can enjoy your coffee break" something like that would definetely help.
Please kindly consider.
yxdb. It would be AWESOME to either right-click on the Input tool or use a new tool to get:
anything else would be icing on the cake.
This is a QoL-request, and I love me some QoL-updates!
While I'm developing I often need the output of a workflow as input for the next phase of my development. For example: an API run returns job location, status, and authentication ids. I want to use these in a new workflow to start experimenting what'll work best. Because of the experimenting part, I always do this in a new workflow and not cache and continue in my main flow.
Writing a temporary output file always feels like unnescesary steps, and tbh I don't want to write a file for a step that'll be gone before it reaches production. Esp if there is sensitive information in it.
I like to suggest having a Batch Macro Container (besides the existing Container) which acts as a Batch Macro within a Workflow and is stored within the Workflow.
I understand that having a batch macro available as a separate tool can be very powerful and reduces redundant work. However, very often Batch Macros are set up for a specific workflow only and are of no use for other workflows. The Creation of a Batch Macro in a container will significantly reduce the time to deploy a batch macro and keeps the Macro folder clean of one-time Batch Macros.
Attached a picture of how this could look like
According to wikipedia :
CROSS JOIN returns the Cartesian product of rows from tables in the join. In other words, it will produce rows which combine each row from the first table with each row from the second table. Example of an explicit cross join: SELECT * FROM employee CROSS JOIN department; Example of an implicit cross join: SELECT * FROM employee, department; The cross join can be replaced with an inner join with an always-true condition: SELECT * FROM employee INNER JOIN department ON 1=1;
For us, alteryx users, it would be very similar to Append Fields but for in-db.
Please can you include right-click options for select/de-select in all tools that have select functionality, including:
Currently this functionality is hidden in the menu which goes against the look and feel of the rest of the product.
I know this was raised by @MarqueeCrew back in the day, and I'm surprised this was never implemented.
Please, Alteryx Gods. It would make me very happy.
Alteryx is unlike many BI tools in the sense that it joins NULL. It is difficult to think of another platform that has this behaviour. Either people know about this and work around it or they don't and their joins are a ticking time bomb. Please add a check box to the Join and Join Multiple tools to allow or prevent joining NULL. This will serve to remove the need for workarounds as well as educate users about this default behaviour.
I was looking at the ideas history to see if this was already posted and couldn't find it, but feel free to merge if there is a existing one.
The motivation for this is that I have a workflow that works perfectly when you hit the run button in Designer, but fails when runs from schedule (To local computer).
So the idea is to allow the users to run the workflows from within the scheduler, once a workflow has been scheduled (So it runs exactly as it'll be when the schedule triggers it, but without having to reschedule every time).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this possible in old (I mean very old) versions of Designer?
Can we please have a tickbox (ideally one that remembers your preference to be ticked or unticked) on the Save to Gallery pop up that would allow us to save a (timestamped?) copy of that workflow on a local drive (perhaps one that is preset in the user settings)?
Currently, if you download and Alteryx package from an alternative version it doesn't allow import into a newer version.
Workflows allow this with a warning it would be good to allow it on packages too.
When viewing results of a workflow that has Errors, could we add External error resolution data if the user clicks on the error message? Like browse everywhere it could lookup the error in help and in community posts.
We store valuable data in our MS Teams sites (which are sharepoint folders behind the scenes). Currently, there is no way to connect to sharepoint directly (only if I sync sharepoint to my local drive, which is problematic and doesn't work on Alteryx server).
My recommendation is to have a sharepoint connector which works on both the desktop and server.
I've been spending some time looking at low-code app development platforms, and one of the features that these have which it would be great to see added into Alteryx Analytic Apps is the ability to display results directly in the app interface pane.
At the moment when an app successfully runs the results can be shown in a pop-out window, as shown below:
An example from a low code built app is this:
Therefore the new feature it would be great to add is a browse result window within the interface tool, or a way to render the results and display that in the window.
Looking forward to hearing from others and what else have you seen with web apps that it would be great to improve Alteryx Analytic Apps with?
Hello gurus -
I think it would be an important safety valve if at application start up time, duplicate macros found in the 'classpath' (i.e., https://help.alteryx.com/current/server/install-custom-tools, ) generate a warning to the user. I know that if you have the same macro in the same folder you can get a warning at load time, but it doesn't seem to propagate out to different tiers on the macro loading path. As such, the developer can find themselves with difficult to diagnose behavior wherein the tool seems to be confused as to which macro metadata to use. I also imagine someone could also arrive at a situation where a developer was not using the version of the macro they were expecting unless they goto the workflow tab for every custom macro on their canvas.
Thank you for attending my TED talk on the upsides of providing warnings at startup of duplicate macros in different folder locations.
I would like for it to be easier to change input (and output) tools to UNC pathing. I think adding it to the right click menu would be great. Currently, I have to go to options >> advanced >> workflow dependencies. A right click option would be easier.