This site uses different types of cookies, including analytics and functional cookies (its own and from other sites). To change your cookie settings or find out more, click here. If you continue browsing our website, you accept these cookies.
I am noticing what I think it's a big gap in terms of turnover and job changes. Even though you can add workflows to a Collection for development and update purposes. Only the original owner/publisher can see the version history for a workflow. At least that appears to be the case in 2020.1
Is there any discussion for the road map to include a way to transfer the ownership of a workflow from one user to another? this would alleviate the need to publish a brand new version and then reset all the scheduling.
I work at a large organization where Security and Privacy are of utmost importance. The ideology that we need to follow is Least Privilege and Need to Know.
We (Curators) do not want all the Artisans to publish workflows to Home Page, either knowingly or unknowingly. We however do want to allow a few power users to publish their work in Home Page, but currently the Gallery does not provide the ability to pick and choose who can share workflows publicly. We are educating users to not share any contents publicly, but as we scale up, it will be difficult to manage and govern this.
I'm suggesting to implement a global Yes/No feature that will Enable/Disable Artisans to publish contents in Home Page (just like the way we have for Jobs/Scheduling feature). Further, in Users section, Edit User setting needs to have a Yes/No button that will allow Curators to let certain Artisans place workflows in My Company's Gallery.
Organizations that never want any workflow to be shared publicly can disable this feature using global Yes/No button. Organizations (like the one I work at) that want to enable this only for certain Artisans, can set the Global Yes/No to No, and then in Users tab, they can pick and choose the Users that need this functionality (which will override the global default). Finally Organizations that do not really care about this functionality can just set the global setting to Yes.
Hoping other organizations find value in this functionality as well. Thanks.
So, .YXI files are great, they allow a much simpler installation process of macros from the Gallery to your local machine and server.
However one problem; they are not supported to be hosted on the Alteryx Gallery. This means that in order to share .yxi files they have to be hosted on some other drive and then you have to have a workflow in the alteryx gallery which provides users with the download link.
This makes that clean process a bit less clean, and it also causes problems with big customers who cannot whitelist these share drives for which the .yxi files are hosted. I myself have had about 20 emails from one global consulting firm in the US requesting access to a macro, I can't link them to the content as they are blocked, and therefor I have to email them individually.
It's a tad tedious and ruins the 'install experience'.
If you don't know what I'm talking about you can follow my colleagues (Peter Gamble-Beresfords) blog here:
As Alteryx leans more into the Data Science space - it becomes more important to be able to keep rich documentation of the project along with the Alteryx Asset. This does also require the concept of a "project" on the alteryx server, which would allow for meta-tags; and various different documents to be added with the project.
This would include things like Requirement documents; test evidence; test data sets etc.
This would extend Alteryx from a data prep engine to more of a data-science workbench as different user groups can participate in a specific project.
Apparently I click too fast sometimes when saving a project, but there are a number of times where the workflow name hasn't populated when saving to the gallery and it ends up saving a blank file name. This is a pain because I can't do anything with the one in the gallery because there is nowhere to click on it, so I can't use the replace function and have to re-save it and re-add it back into any collections that it was in.
I realize that I just need to slow down, but I do this frequently enough where it absolutely drives me crazy. Being able to change file names in the gallery would be a big plus instead of just using the replace option.
Insights should work like Apps. We should be able to publish insights then grant permission to other people/studios to access the visualizations. I have many clients / users that can benefit from having access to the Insights i'm gathering from Alteryx.
It seems from my own experiences and other community posts (e.g. https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Server-Discussions/Scheduled-worklfow-not-picking-up-the-qu...) that when scheduling a workflow in the gallery, the gallery will run whatever version was most recently uploaded, regardless of which one has been labeled as "Published". Since naturally the intent is for the Published workflow to be the only version running, it would be nice (adnd would me much more logical and intuitive) for the scheduler to run that version.
The search for replacing a workflow is poor (and I get that it is probably challenging to write on the back end) but as a result even if I type in the exact title of the workflow (aka copy and paste) Alteryx replace can't find it. Not only does this mean I have multiple workflows with the same name running around (loads of fun with lack of version control) but it also makes this entire thing more frustrating every time I update a workflow (as normally this also means the scheduling of said workflow breaks).
It would be awesome if instead of having to search by title for your workflow that you wish to replace with if you could instead use the URL where Alteryx Gallery put the workflow and then there wouldn't be any confusions about which workflow and you wouldn't have to type.
As you can see from the screen shot below, “Version 10” is my latest version, but I’ve selected “Version 9” to be the published version. When I hit “Run” or when I schedule a run, it is running version 10 instead of version 9. The only way for me to run version 9 is to click on it and select “Run Selected Version” (also in screen shot below).
This doesn’t seem logical to me that the runs are not using the published version. Would love to see this setting changed! :)