I see from some old posts that reporting nodes within meta nodes are deliberately excluded. Are there any plans to change this? I rarely make a workflow without using meta nodes and having to use the repoting nodes outside of these makes the workflow a mess.
It makes more sense to me to place the Data to Report node within the meta node which outputs the data. The attatchment shows the nodes that could do not need to be on the top level.
Yes, correct. This is a long-standing discussion. I see your point that pushing the report data to the top level workflow is a bit more cumbersome (but still seems doable -- or do you have 20+ report data sets?)
I guess the main reason why we don't change it right away is that we are also discussing to enable meta node specific reports (so not only one report per workflow but possibly one report per meta node). Once we do that, we must distinguish between "data to report" nodes on the workflow vs. meta node level.
Thank you for the response, it's more of an aesthetic issue that a technical one. I can push all the data out of the meta node without causing an issue. I doubt I will ever be needing to send more than 15 node outputs to a report.
I try to keep workflows condensed and tidy, each metanode generally holds a number of nodes for a specific function, or sometimes they are just used as 'cable ties'. It's nice to be able to simplify how a workflow looks in this way. Having the reporting nodes on the top levels limits the degree in which I can do this.
Meta node specific nodes certainly sounds interesting and this is likely the way in which I would use reporting if this feature was available. Currently I have a number of workflow variables controlling saving files and then an external report (HTML + PHP) is generated based on this output.
Agree it can look messy, and I have had a similar situation myself with around 15 Report Designer nodes popping out of metanodes which looks untidy.
However, if its the option between doing this, and having the ability for multiple reports per workflow, I would go for the latter option. The restriction of one BIRT Report per workflow is rather unsatisfactory, although there are some cumbersome workarounds of hiding objects.
Sorry to open such an old thread but does anyone know if the one report per metanode idea is still on the KNIME roadmap? If so, is there any time estimate?
I agree with troy.smith and I think that "one report per metanode" would be a very usefull feature.
I agree, it would save a lot of time. Besides metanode reports don’t contradict having a main report on a higher level.
I recently had 15 images and 5 tables on a project to extract from metanodes, then I ended up reorganizing it all.