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
I would like to suggest that the licensing process is enhanced to work more effectively within a Citrix environment that has many servers in the farm.
When using a citrix environment it is not possible to register muliple users on a single citrix server with unique email addresses as the license is removed from an existing registered user when another user registers on the same citrix server. The License Server however does not reflect this and each user retains an allocated license on the license server even though they cannot use Alteryx Designer on the citrix desktop.
Alteryx have provided a workaround which is to use a generic email address to register each user and in this way the licenses are not removed as each new user registers.
Unfortunatley when a user unregisters a License the license is removed from the whole machine therefore no users on the machine are then able to use Alteryx Designer. In order to work around this we have had to schedule a daily job to run the license delete command from each server in our citrix farm.
This is not an ideal solution.
What we would like to see is user license seperation so that we can register the license to the users own email address at login and then remove the license for just that user at logout. This would ensure that the licenses are allocated to the user and machine as needed and we would not run the risk of running out of licenses if users log on and off different sessions over the course of a day logging on to different servers as the licenses are only revoked at the end of each day.
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?
In addition to the create index idea, I think the equivalent for vertica may be also useful.
On vertica, the data is store in those projections, equivalent to index on other database... and a table is linked to those projections. When you query a table, the engine choose the most performant projection to query.
What I suggest : instead of a create index box, a create index/projection box.
I am starting to utilize alteryx as our platform to run our daily data load process. A bunch of the data are sent via SFTP and it would be a lot simpler if the following features are directly available instead of utilizing the run command and/or scripting.
1. Ability to use wildcard in the download instead of specifically defining the filenames. (can be done indirectly but have to use multiple tools --> 2 downloads, parse, etc.)
2. Ability to delete files after the files have been downloaded successfully.
- I have seen a couple of posts in the community trying to do this but haven't found one that worked for me; again this was utilizing run command and scripts and other utility programs)
Appreciate if you can look into this request !
When I select multiple containers using control. I can see the configuration pane still on the left. If I adjust anything there it will only adjust the last selected container. I would like it to adjust all selected containers.
Looking for a way to make multi-selection much easier (rather than single click per item). Could be an improvement on the List Box, or a new tool that allows multi-selection with highlighting desired items. Control/Shift keys for selections similar to Windows, etc.
Please add Mode as an option in the IN-DB summarize tool. It is helpful to be able to summarize by mode before streaming out to reduce the number of records.
It would be helpful to be able to toggle the way the Mode calculation handles two or more "ties." Currently if there is a tie between records, the lower is returned. I have a use case where I would rather have the higher value return if there is a tie. I could also see there being a use for an average between the tied records. Ideally I think there would be three options for a tie: use the 1. lowest value 2. highest value 3. average of tied values. I'm not sure if first/last would also be helpful to have as options.
My use case is for product dimensions. We use the mode to normalize the dimensions (height, width, depth) of products. Because we are using the dimensions for space planning, if the lower value is used there may not be enough space for the product on the shelf. We would rather use the higher of the tied values to make sure we aren't creating a plan where the products won't fit.
I guess it's better if the current column filter feature would cover the entire data set not just the partial results. This would be useful especially if after you run the complicated workflow and you just want to test the data particular nodes in the canvass.
I understand why you need to keep bloat away from the product and have tools available to download instead, it means you can iterate and update them outside the usual cadence cycles. But please, for the love of everything holy, make it easier to find them and download them.
Let me give you an example of downloading the Google Sheets Input Tool:
1. I type in the amazing search and find a help article on it, so far so good:
2. I am pointed to the Gallery:
3. I click but where do I look? I need to revert to the tiny search in the top left. This isn't obvious for new users
4. but the search doesn't come top, how some of these search results get in above what I need I have no idea. I get to page 4 before I see something that looks like what I need before I realise it is a third party tool having installed it. I come back, can't find the tool and so give up. If it's there somewhere then it needs to be more obvious.
5. I google - I finally find (third item) something that's more useful but only because I know what I'm looking for
6. I run the workflow, then run it again as per the instructions. At this point I'm losing the will to live tbh.
7. Finally something that looks useful, I bang the huge download button twice and wonder why it didn't work.
9. I read the text and realise I need to click the link - finally I have the installer.
That was a five minute job. It was painful. And I'm a seasoned Alteryx user. If I was a new user, I'd have given up at step 2 or 3.
But what was the thing I downloaded in Step 8? A set of release notes and links....why aren't these simply added to the help article I found in Step 1/2? It would surely be easier for you, and would be a whole lot easier for users. Why do we need this painful process?
Please please please make it easier for me to install new tools.
I am very new to Alteryx, just beginning to learn the ropes! I would like to provide feedback because my experience right now may provide an opportunity to make suggestions regarding user experience!
I just have one (minor) suggestion for the multi-row formula tool's interface:
The dropdown field (circled above) sits directly below the "create new field" radio button. This lead me to assume that it applied to the "create new field" option and not the "update existing field" button which I had selected.
Yes, there were a couple of clues that may have helped me see this had I been paying very close attention. Unfortunately, in the chaos that is learning a new technology (especially one as expansive and powerful as Alteryx) I didn't not catch those clues and instead spent a few hours trying to figure out why my calculation wasn't doing what I wanted it to do.
I imagine the drop down would be better served by being separated from the radio buttons (by space or a line). But there are any number of ways that this design could be improved.
This might seem nitpicky to some, but I think it's important to strive for technology that is as "human friendly" as possible! Thanks!
I use the field name auto-complete feature whenever I can. One issue with it, however, is when there are parentheses in a field name. After auto-completing the field name, Alteryx highlights a portion of the field name after the first parenthesis. This is not ideal as I typically expect the cursor to be at the end of the field name so I may continue to type. In this scenario, unfortunately, I would begin to type over my field name and the expression gets messed up.
For example, as shown below, I begin to type "st" and then hit the tab button to complete the field name in my expression.
In this case, because my field name has parentheses in it, however, some of the field name remains highlighted and the cursor does not go to the end of the right bracket, as one would expect.
If I were to continue typing at this point, the highlighted portion of the expression would get erased and replaced.
Field names that do not contain parentheses continue to function correctly as shown below.
Similar to the thoughts in this idea, it would be great if the parenthesis matching functionality could be added to the formula tool as well.
DuckDB is a new project of embeddable database by the team behind MonetDB. From what I understand, it's like a SQLite database but for analytics (columnar-vectorized query execution engine on a single file). And of course it's open-source and free.
More info on their website : https://duckdb.org/
DearAlteryx team and community,
all the best for 2021!
Thank you very much for enhancing the output option from Alteryx Designer to Excel keeping the format.
For a lot of my use cases this is very helpful!
Still, there are some use cases left. In case I want to overwrite a calculated/linked number (e.g. calculated prediction) with the Actual number, it would be very helpful to feed into those cells as well. At the moment Alteryx is doing the job but I receive a lot of Excel Errors (xml errors) and a corupt Excel file when overwriting calculated fields/linked fields.
Is there a chance to extend the current setup for all of those cases?
Thanks and best regards
It would be great to more easily add a date stamp to the file name of excel files. Currently I have to add a formula tool to create a file path and then use the "replace entire file path" option at the bottom of the output tool. I am often ONLY adding a date stamp and no other dynamic data to the file name. I'm sure there is a more elegant solution than this, but something to this effect:
In a Formula tool expression editor, when I type "nu", the first result in the autocomplete suggestion dropdown is "Null()". When I hit TAB to autocomplete, my cursor is placed in between the parenthesis, as if to enter an argument. Null() takes no arguments. Therefore, my cursor should be placed to the right of Null(). I can then continue typing rather than hitting the Right Key first and then typing. For the speed demons out there, this extra keystroke is a big slowdown. This same functionality applies to any function that does not take arguments, such as DateTimeNow().
Please change the expression editor to autocomplete and place the cursor to the right of any function that does not take arguments.
This may be a bit of a pipe dream but having an interface that would automatically and efficiently implement quantum computing functionality against different back ends would position Alteryx to be a user friendly interface to the quantum computing realm. My feeling is that, at the end of the day, most people will know quantum programming about as well as they currently know GPU programming, which is to say not at all. They'll need an easy-to-use tool to translate their wants to some form of quantum speed-up. Q#, Qiskit, Cirq and Bra-ket are neat, but suppose Alteryx had a "quantum solver" tool that would handle a lot of the dirty work of setting up, say, a quantum Grover Search, where the user just describes what they need.
I know some of the heavy hitters are already trying to simplify the interface to the quantum realm (e.g. as of 1/1/2021: Google Cirq, Microsoft Q#, IBM Aqua, AWS Braket all moving beyond basic enablement into realms of user friendliness.)
Just a thought!
Many a times, we come across scenarios when the formula tool fails due to the change in the data type of the input fields.
For instance, a numerical calculation would fail or would not give correct result if the data type of a field was changed due to some reason(from double to string for example).
In such cases, we might have to change the change the data type in Select tool or add Tonumber() to the fields expression of the formula tool to make it work.
My proposal is to have a formula tool that should be dynamic to identify the purpose of expression and either add the Tonumber() expression while execution or convert the data type of the fields as per the requirements of the expressions in the formula.
Connect to Azure SQL Database with Azure AD also with Multi-Factor Authentication is a crucial feature nowadays. The tool should be configurable by interface tools so we can change the database within the same Azure Database server.
There is a workaround to use ODBC for this but it does not support caching credentials and that's why problematic to use. The credential prompt is appearing every time we run the workflow. With ODBC it's also required to have a separate DSN for every database in the same server.
To make it easy for users there should be a native connector for this feature. The user experience should be easy as it's in an azure data lake connector.