Alteryx Server Ideas

Share your Server product ideas - we're listening!
Submitting an Idea?

Be sure to review our Idea Submission Guidelines for more information!

Submission Guidelines

Featured Ideas


I have inherited admin duties, and have been running to many problems. Some of which will escalate when the subscriptions go away. 

The pages desperately need to be updated for a more streamlined admin experience.

Couple examples I came up with below. 


Naming Convention

  • Allow workflow renaming without the replace function.
  • Force a unique plan name across all private studios. instead of being unique on just ID.

API Access

  • Allow any user who can access the module from Collections to be able to trigger it from the API using their own API key.
  • Store results of "API" triggered workflows on the page.
  • Groups:
  • Identify Users without a group
  • Identify users in more than one group
  • Add multiple users at one time (Muticheck box) with filters.

User Page

  • Add/remove Users to Groups
  • View, add, and remove Collections from Their User Page

Collection Page

  • Add Collection from the Admin collection Page

Designer "save" window.

  • Give the ability on Save As & Save for the user to automatically share the plan with their collection(s).
  • Default all "Workflow" assets to be unchecked by default, rather than relying on users to click "workflow options"," manage workflow assets", and then uncheck everything.

Workflow Page

  • Change Owner (Can be limited to admin only)
  • Add directly to collection from this page.
  • Do not reset the "private data exemption" to default every time an updated version is updated.
  • Allow admin users to see logs of all users who run the plan (Also add this to the admin page while you are at it)



Would like to see more flexible options for workflow run-as credential settings, both for when publishing the workflow and kicking off the job. 


Here is a thread where we discuss the limitations we are seeing when trying to publish the workflow to Gallery via an API. We would also like to see more flexibility when our users want to kick off their workflows via an API where they could pass in different run-as credentials they would like the job to run as.


Currently we can only configure questions and flow priority when using the POST API to queue workflows.

Would be good to be able be able send some of the Runtime configurations as well.

This would allow for much more flexibility.








,{"name":"Test_txt","value":"schedule test"}

, "priority": ""

"disable browse":"True"         // When running flows in production this would reduce resource usage as data will no longer be cached. Having it as a parameters would mean that we can ensure that it is disabled

,"disable output":"False"       



Current Fields

Possible other fields

The full question tree is not visible within the JSON object returned when requesting the 'Questions' in the .yxwz file on the Alteryx Server. There are nested questions that are visible but there is no indication that they are nested, missing label groups, tabs and no indication whether a question should be shown or hidden. This is limiting.


A full question tree in the JSON would allow for dynamic interpretation of the 'Questions' in the .yxwz file as structured through the Interface Designer.




Currently, in order to run an app via the API, you have to have uploaded the app to your private studio. Frankly, I don't find this function useful because you have to download then re-upload an app in order to gain access to the API. The API would be more useful if when an app is shared with you (or a collection is shared with you), then it would also allow for that app to be run via API by the user it was shared with. Right now, the only person who can run the app via API is the user who originally uploaded said app. 

One of the frustrations we have faced in using Alteryx Gallery is the question "How do we set up many users with their respective collections easily?".

If we take for an example, the scenario where a company has 300 potential users of the gallery, who are all going to login and generate a report based on their department.
In order for them not to be able to generate the reports on other departments, the report generation workflows are put into collections. The current solution to this (atleast on SAML Authentication), is for a user to sign up, and then a Curator to assign them to their given collection. This is fine for small scale solutions, but the purpose of server is allowing for large scale deployment and automation of tasks, and this is far from ideal for a larger company.

If the server is setup on Windows Authentication, the users are able to be categorised within the Windows Active Directory, and then these groups (which may pre-exist) are able to be added to the gallery straight from the AD (see here), however this is not a feature within SAML Authentication.

From my knowledge, SAML Authentication should easily allow for this functionality, and it works very similar to Windows Active Directory. I mentioned this on a call with a Customer Support Engineer, and he explained that this wasn't part of his known roadmap for the Alteryx Gallery. 

I do believe this to be an extension of a current post on the Alteryx forum, however, this details opening the API to allow for this on an API level, however I would also suggest for this to be integrated within Alteryx Gallery, as not all users are experienced with using, or building tools around, the API.



I think it would be extremely useful to be able to trigger an Alteryx workflow using Power Automate. 


The main benefit I see at the moment is automatically triggering an Alteryx workflow when the input data has been refreshed.


This would also enable a Power App to be added directly to Power Bi which can simply be clicked to re-run an Alteryx workflow then refresh the Power Bi dataset. 

My team utilizes the Gallery API extensively and have found that we have processes that the API has listed as actively running, but cannot be found via the Controller's GUI.  As a gallery artisan, I can call flows via API, but cannot cancel these executions unless I reach out to the administrator group to kill them manually. 


It would be extremely helpful to add an endpoint with the ability to submit a specific job GUID and have the server/controller kill the execution of that flow and clear up the server capacity.  This could then be scheduled on a regular basis as a maintenance  task to keep the server clean.



The publishing endpoint, a POST to api/admin/v1/workflows/, is useless whenever workflows, apps, or macros contain Gallery Data Connections.  The workflow will get published but valid Gallery Data Connections are ignored and the apps will not run.


Please add the same dependency checks against Gallery Data Connections as is performed when a workflow or app is manually published from Designer.


This might be considered a subset of the Idea Server API to extract / submit workflows.



Thank you for your consideration.



There is a strong need for more APIs to be introduced in Alteryx Server so that our Admin teams can provide automated solutions to our users. My understanding is that a lot of these will be introduced into Alteryx Analytics Hub however, it is also needed in Alteryx Server.


I would propose that the internal APIs for Collections and Scheduler be exposed to the Admin Key/Secrets so that we can use these APIs to move our Users workflows directly to their collection or automatically schedule for them, if needed. It seems that all this would take would be to release the Authorization from internal to the Admin on the API.


APIs I am requesting be released:

  • PUT .../gallery/api/collections/{collectionID}/apps/{appID}/
  • POST .../gallery/api/scheduler/

Alteryx Server API should be allowed to publish the workflow in the gallery. 

  • API

Our corporation has multiple private studios set up (depending on various teams within our infrastructure); when we provide a user access to one private studio, they cannot be part of another private studio (to update/add/remove their workflows); they can view/see them within the collections, but cannot action them.


If possible within the Alteryx Server interface, could users be added to multiple/different private studios (and be authorized for all), and have a toggle that would allow them to switch back and forth? This would alleviate a lot of our issues we have with users reporting/being involved with multiple teams (who are requiring access to different private studios).


In a heavily used server environment, and depending on how workflows are deployed, it is possible to accumulate a vast number of "one off" workflows that could/should be deleted  as they would never be used again. In one of our environments we have over 1 million of these.


Currently we are manually deleting them 500 at a time but have asked if there is a way to script the delete process to make it more efficient. We have been told that to really delete a workflow you would need to touch at least 4 collections.


Can we have a Delete workflow API in one of the next releases in order to address this issue?


Thank you


Tom Diroff

My team currently uses the API to call a large number of workflows via a Python based scheduler process.  We use this currently by having ~10 users in a single subscription (Private Studio).  


All of the Private Studio sites on the Alteryx help state that they are going away in the near future to be replaced by individual studios and Shared Collections.  


From our testing, this would kill our processing as we cannot have an API for 1 Private Studio call workflows from a different private studio even if they have access through a shared collection.  


Are there plans to adjust the API endpoints in the future to better account for this?


Our IT department is looking to move to the Collections based structure now in preparation for the removal of the current Studio setup, so another question is when the structural update is planned to go into effect (which server version should we expect this?) so that we can get ready to account for this or if we can ask them to back off a little.




Hi Team,

     Just like the workflow upload API, could you please provide an API end-point for deleting the workflow,Job results and it's related information. In a scenario we might use gallery for one time execution of workflow, once the output was generated there is no point to have some workflows in the Gallery hence in this scenario the Delete API helps as a clean up activity on the Gallery to avoid the Junk/Unused information (Workflow/Job/Outputs). 

We have a usecase where we want to check how often a workflow runs via the API so we can automate the consumption reporting we do internally. Right now the API only reads out workflows that were scheduled using said API. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Enabling it to also read out all the other workflows would really make this a powerful feature for us and I suspect others.

  • API


As your analytics work grows - you find yourself using the power of Alteryx to create shared macros.    These act as an accelerator for a team because one team member can us a reusable solution created by another team member.   For example - many teams need to get data out of JIRA (or some other system) so you create a connector that everyone can use.


That's going well - and now you have 20 teams all publishing canvasses to your server (possibly 100s of canvasses running in production) which make use of your JIRA connector - all good so-far!



BUT THEN - you discover an issue with the JIRA connector and you need to fix it and publish a new version!


It's at this point that you realise that the canvasses on your server which use your JIRA connector are NOT pointing to it, but they have made a copy and included this inside their canvas.   So when you fix the problem with the JIRA connector - no-one gets the fix!


This is because every application uploaded to the server is a yxzp file, which zips up a COPY of all the shared macros and uses this in an isolated way.

So - in order to get the new JIRA connector (with the defect repaired) used instead of the old one you now need to:

- Download EVERY canvas on your server

- Unpack them all to expose the sub-macros being used

- Inspect them to see if they are actually an instance of the JIRA Macro

- Make a list of the owner and application IDs

- reach out by e-mail or phone to every one of these folk to ask them to republish their Alteryx workflow with your new version of the JIRA connector.




Please can we revisit this - we really do need the power of shared macros - and we also need the ability to fix and manage these like a product over time.   This will have an impact on the engine (hence copying @AdamR ) 


Desired end-state:

- When you build a canvas using a shared macro - it doesn't store the macro itself, but rather a reference to the version on the server - unless you explicitly decide to break the connection and take a copy.

- When you check this canvas into the server - your application / yxzp does NOT include a copy of the shared macro - instead it has a reference link

- this means that Alteryx Server can now track which canvasses use this shared macro very simply

- When I fix this shared macro - I can then do an in-place update; or if the interface is not the same (i.e. different inputs or outputs) then this has to be a new version and the users will stay pointing to version 1.


This is how shared assets are managed in a micro-service world, which is the way that all of our architecture is going - and it seems important that we build this thinking into the Alteryx infrastructure too.








@AdamR ; @Treyson ; @SteveA @DerekK ; @BlytheE 

Using current version of the server - you can see that there is no OAuth managed or published API endpoint for canvas delete (screenshot 1).   However this API does CLEARLY exist as you can see if you inspect what happens when you hit the delete button (screenshot 2 clearly shows the API being called - but it requires user login security token)


Please can you enable this API for OAuth - the API already exists, it just needs to be exposed with the others.


CC: @BlytheE 







  • API

Hello everyone,


I created before a post about managing chained workflows using the API.
After reaching out the support, it turns out to be impossible, which is unfortunate.


So I post this idea here, in case anyone is needing it too.

Feels free to ask me details if needed.



Are there any plans to add support for the Spatial Object, File Browse and Tree questions for the Gallery REST API?


I see via the Interface Viewer in Designer that the "answers"/values to these questions are just (messy) XML I realize the File Browse could be difficult because it would involve accommodating some type of BLOB data but the Spatial Object (one or more lat/lngs describing a point or shape) and the Tree questions seems to be fairly straightforward.


We currently get around the Spatial Object limitation by specifying a latitude and longitude (for a Point) in text boxes. For shapes (polygons) we just stuff the WKT (Well Known Text) representation of the polygon in a text box. This works fine but requires special handling on the workflow side. 



Top Liked Authors