This may be a little controversial. As of today, when you buy an Alteryx Server, the basic package covers up to 4 cores :
I have always known that. But these last years, the technology, the world has evolved. Especially the number of cores in a server. As an example, AMD Epyc CPU for server begin at 8 cores :
So the idea is to update the number of cores in initial package for 8 or even 16 cores. It would :
-make Alteryx more competitive
-cost only very few money
-end some user frustration
Moreover, Alteryx Server Additional Capacity license should be 4 cores.
A nice to have is a connector for Microsoft Flow to trigger workflows. With Microsoft Flow, users can automate processes, or set conditions that can trigger services across many different providers.
Having the ability to use a Microsoft Flow can enable alteryx users to run workflows and feed in data that could be used by Microsoft Flow to feed into other processes.
This would be a game changer for many users.
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.
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.
We currently have the ability to store connections on the server which protects the credentials - however this capability does not exist for APIs for Sharepoint sites etc.
Please could you extend this to cover authentication for ALL connectors?
It will be great to make visibility of workflow execution results to other users in same subscription.
As of now, only schedules are visible to all users in a subscription, but not the workflow execution results executed by a user to other users in same subscription.
This will avoid duplicate execution of same workflow by multiple user in a team as it will provide option to cross check the execution results by other users, if executed already, before execution of same workflow.
For a given DB connection - there's a need to be able to specify the owner for this specific connection.
Reason for this is that the credentials for a given DB are not all managed by the central admin team - so we'd want to say that a given DB connection is owned by a particular person so that this can be updated frequently as passwords change.
For resilience - our particular policy would be to have 2 owners so that if one person resigns or changes roles, it invalidates the primary and reverts to the secondary - and then asks the new Primary to create a backup owner.
My company uses R Shiny and maybe in the future Python Dash to create multiple analytic apps, dashboards, etc for multiple people to run across our company. One thing that would be nice to to have these R Shiny workflows run off of the Alteryx Server as that would allow us to use Alteryx Server to keep permissions and ease of use.
I propose an update to the Alteryx Server that would allow for R Shiny apps to be run in the Alteryx Server with all functionality of custom R interactive plots, etc etc just like what you'd see in one hosted on a R Shiny Server.
The benefits of this would allow for my company to only have to manage one server instance (Alteryx) to run all of this. Since R/Python is allowed/used in Alteryx workflows already, can you add the ability to visualize R Shiny code/plots/interactions/etc within Alteryx Server itself?
Below you can see few of my suggestion to improve Alteryx Server.
Idea for Alteryx Server monitoring:
Give server more functionality with:
Hopefully you will find these suggestions interesting and useful.
In order for us to manage the large number of canvasses on our server - we need to add the ability for Admin teams to require additional attributes on every canvas:
For us, these mandatory attributes would be:
- Which team do you belong to (dropdown)
- What business process does this serve (dropdown - multiselect)
- Primary & secondary canvas owner (validated kerberos)
For the ones that have dropdown lists - we can provide the master data into a drop location or into a manually configured list on the server.
Everyone on our team would benefit from having access to each other's workflows -- including workflow results and scheduling -- but publishing them to gallery where any user in the company can run it/ download it would present a security issue. Functionality that is not met with Collections. I found a similar idea, but not anything that encompasses the whole thing.
It would be of immense value to have a Team Gallery - something intermediate to the company gallery and the private collection. This would enable our team to have access to modify, publish, schedule workflows as a team.
When looking at a Workflow in the Gallery there is no way to tell if it currently resides in a collection. As a suggestion, a good place to have this information would be in the header block of a workflow where the version information and number of times a workflow was run is stored.
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.
With Version 2018.3, you removed the Autodetect SMTP button, and with it, have rendered the Email Tool virtually useless for many people, which is a shame because it is a critical tool for some of us to share reports produced in Alteryx.
In requiring an SMTP path, there are a host of authentication issues that need to be addressed, and we can't seem to figure out how to configure the path and From emails properly to allow the tool to work without errors.
My only solution at this point is to rollback to 2018.2 so I can continue to use the Email tool.
Please address this so we can use the tool as before, or provide the necessary configuration options to allow for proper authentication with popular email services (Gmail, etc.)
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.
Currently, workflow history is available to specific user only but cannot see workflow history from other users even they are in same studio.
For example, in Private studio "MAIN_STD", user A to run workflow “WF1”. User A can see the running history while user B cannot see.
Now it is possible to share a collection which a user who is not granted to access Alteryx server.
We use AD to grant users access to Alteryx Gallery. However, when a user is not in this group, it is still possible to choose him as a person to share.
In my opinion, such user should be indicated as someone who won't be able to use a shared collection, or he should be presented at all.