Handling Hidden / Excluded rows / columns in Table-handling

[MShroff]

Hello,

When using the Table-processing commands, it would be helpful to provide checkboxes in the dialog to determine how to handle hidden / excluded rows or columns. In particular, this is problematic with splitting tables.

Regards

Mehul Shroff

[shampton82]

I like this, I would also like to add in a check box for using only selected data, that way you don't have to subset then split from the new table.

Steve

[mia_stephens]

Thank you for this suggestion. Can you please provide additional information on what you would like to see?

[MShroff]

Hello,

I would like to have a dialog option to choose whether to include hidden / excluded rows in the output table when doing a Split Table.

On a related note, I would like to request the availability of the same option when doing an export from JMP into another format.

Regards

Mehul Shroff

[hogi]

What a brilliant idea

If there is a good reason why summary respects excluded - there could be a similar reason why the other platforms should respect it as well (at least for some cases).

If there is a good reason why a platform doesn't respect excluded - there could be a similar reason why summary shouldn't either (at least for some cases).

Yes, 
please add a yes/no  >option< to ALL Table platforms 
...  to respect excluded  (for split, stack, update ...)
... and if you wish: to disable it for summary

Alternative: 

please add an option to store the excluded state in an additional column (many column in the case of split).

Alternative: 

Please add a warning that the respective Table Platform is one of those which ignore excluded
(e.g. as a option in the platform: "respect excluded" - an option which is disabled
or: as status text on the bottom left)

It's clear that the user just has to generate a subset of the non-excluded row.
so ...
Why is this idea important? 

Due to table linking - the user gets a visual feedback that Tables/Summary does respect "excluded":

Current Data Table() << Data Filter(
Add Filter(
columns( :age ),
Where( :age == {14, 17} )
));

So, it's not obvious that the other platforms ignore "excluded" - and it's hard to find this info in the Documentation.

[Jeff_Perkinson]

@hogi wrote:

Alternative: 

please add an option to store the excluded state in an additional column (many column in the case of split).

---

Take a look at Row State columns. They do just that: store row states in a column.

[hogi]

Hi @Jeff_Perkinson 

great that this feature is already available - I didn't find it.

Which option tells Tables/Split so map the row states of the the input table to row state columns in the output table?

[hogi]

added to Tiny Traps in Jmp and JSL 

[shampton82]

Another point for this request is to have the ability for the filter in the Summary platform (or any other platform that ends up using it in the same way) to respect the "Subgroup" and not just the "Group" levels.  What happens now if I want to only have a certain level/s of a column in the "Subgroup" I have to subset the data then do a Summary as the filter doesn't apply to the "Subgroup" columns and so I get a column for all the levels in the Summary output, even if I had used the in platform filter in to try an exclude them.  Very frustrating as the filter is taunting you for the "Subgroup"!

Steve

[hogi]

@shampton82 , is this the issue :
https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/hide-empty-groups-in-Tables-summary/m-p/724207/highlight/tr... 

Yes, it would be great if  in Tables/summary could remove not only empty rows, but also empty subgroup columns.