Add a field into existing iterative macro - bill of materials

[Etienne_F]

Hi,

I'm trying another attempt using macros to explode bill of materials. The solutions i found gave me the logical which i struggle to understand so far. And therefore as i need to add another field into the equation the macro doesn't give me the expected output. i don't know i am missing.

I started from this thread https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Designer-Discussions/Bill-of-Materials-challenge/td-p/86759... 

and from the attached workflow. From there, i want to add the production plant field in the input file so i can run the macro on many plants at same time(basically parent/component/plant would be the fields). Plants can use same  item code or not, that's why the key would be plant+item. I can't understand where i should amend the macro to make it work at this level, i tried different ways and never got the right output; Also i'm not sure why this select record at the beginning is there. 

thanks for your help

[PhilipMannering]

If I understand correctly, I think you just need to include the extra field [Plant] in your macro inputs. And add [Plant] as an extra join clause. If you provide some input data with the [Plant] field I can do that for you.

[Etienne_F]

thank you very much

here is how the excel would look like.

curious to see where i got lost! thanks

[PhilipMannering]

Hey @Etienne_F ,

Does this do the job?

[Etienne_F]

that seems on the picture, did you send right attachment? i seem to see the previous one

[PhilipMannering]

My mistake. Apologies.

[Etienne_F]

@PhilipMannering , thanks but something is wrong when i want to put in a larger dataset, i would think this is relative to the summarize tool somehow , see attached the excel please. I'm coming with 44K input records and comes out with 45 records only..

[PhilipMannering · Accepted solution]

I think it's because you need to set the right initial conditions (the root item # for each plant). My best guess is attached (⊙_☉)

[Etienne_F]

Thank you, i'll continue testing but it really looks like the solution in my context