Adobe Workfront

Hi, Looking for some ideas and support here -  I am the admin for a financial services company, we have lots of regulations. We received a request that we now need to have our approvers “certify” that they checked the asset in the proof for x, y, z. My initial thought is to add a custom form to the document but this would be brand new behavior for our approvers to fill out and don’t love this. We also had someone bring up adding a comment, I also don’t love this because it is manual and think that we will be chasing down approvers to add this (also will mess up my automated workflows). Has anyone ever experienced this or has any idea? TYIA

Hello!I need to write a report that captures how many total active jobs there were in any given month of a year. My main problem is our active status’ are custom fields and WF doesn’t seem to want to work with those.How do I get this report?ThanksJustin

Buried in the extremely large feature release last month, were a number of layout template enhancements which I wanted to call out for those of you who might have missed it. The LT enhancements are applicable to all contracts as far as I can tell. https://video.tv.adobe.com/v/3483245/Please watch the recording if you’re interested in the new LT functionality below.-- Determine the options that appear in the More menu (proj, task, issue, portfolio, program)-- Determine toolbar options (e.g. you can hide everything except Create Project from Template)-- Customize header fields to include custom fields. (the 5 field limit remains unchanged)-- Customize left nav bars for groups, teams, users, templates Tagging in ​@user01245 for the 4th bullet point -- this might fix your issue more efficiently if you lock your casual requesters out of this section on their details page.

We’ve sporadically encountered this issue over the past four years, and no one has been able to resolve it. When a request comes in, we respond with an update or comment in the request, tagging the requestor. The requester responds to our comment, but the reply does not appear in the thread within the request; instead, it shows up in their own Profile ‘Updates’ area. No other users are tagged in these updates. We have no idea how these updates are reaching the user’s profile. Has anyone else experienced this? We only discover this when we check in with a customer after not hearing from them, and they say, “oh no, I replied to you!” We then have to search to find their comment, and most of the time, it’s on their own profile. My thought is that maybe they are replying to the notification email, and somehow it’s not being routed to the correct thread. Or perhaps there’s a link in the email that’s supposed to direct them to the existing comment thread, but instead is taking them to their

Join us for a panel discussion focused on building and advancing your career as a Workfront Admin. Hear from experienced professionals as they share what has fueled their growth, how they have expanded their skills, and the moments that helped shape their career paths.This session will focus on real world insights, from what makes the role fulfilling to how Workfront expertise, Adobe connections, and emerging tools like AI can open new opportunities. Whether you are looking to grow in your current role or take the next step, you will gain practical advice and perspective from those who have been in your shoes.What you will learn: What makes a career as a Workfront Admin rewarding and sustainable How building Workfront expertise can impact your long term career growth Tips for leveling up your skills and positioning yourself for new opportunities How to start incorporating AI into your day to day work Career advice panelists wish they knew earlier This is a session you will not

Currently, External Lookup fields support JSON-based data sources, but only a single property can effectively be used/returned. This becomes limiting in real-world integrations where systems require a stored value that differs from the user-facing label.Example:[ { "label": "Not Applicable", "value": "not_applicable" }, { "label": "Brand New", "value": "brand_new" }]Today, we can only expose either the label or the value. In practice, this forces us to expose technical/internal values to end users so downstream systems can properly consume the data.A common example is AEM Tags:label → human-readable value shown to users value → internal identifier/path required by AEM for storage and integrationsWith the current limitation, users see implementation-specific values instead of clean UI labels because the native connector must send the correct stored value to AEM.Suggested improvement:Allow External Lookup fields to:display one property in the UI (e.g. label) store/send another property

Hello community - I am new to Fusion and looking to use Fusion to create a report (or notification if report isn’t an option) that is a list of a users current proofs they are a “reviewer” only on. I don’t see any templates remotely close to this so starting here to see if anyone has done something similar or has any recommendations to get this to work.  So far looking to do the following: watch event for new proof Read the record of the proof to pull role filter by the role “reviewer”  Create report (or notification) What am I missing? 

A user is unable to see the deadline in the report. I have raised this ticket multiple times, but the issue still persists.Upon checking, I found that this is related to how the stage deadlines are configured. For example, if there are two stages and the user is a reviewer only in Stage 1 (with no involvement in Stage 2), Adobe Workfront appears to consider only the overall (final) deadline rather than the stage-specific deadline. As a result, the relevant deadline is not visible to the user in the report.Could you please confirm:Is there an option to display stage-specific deadlines for users based on their assigned stage within reports?If not, is there any recommended workaround to achieve this?Looking forward to your guidance on this.

Summary:The native `workfront-maestro:createRecord` Fusion module does not fully abstract field IDs for linked/connection fields (many-to-many relationships), despite Workspace and Record Type being correctly selected by label from the UI. Expected behavior:The native module should handle the internal field key mapping automatically — developers should never need to know or use raw field IDs like `F69d64ac7f0097169d4b252c8` or construct objects with `_id` suffixed keys like `{"F69d64ac7f0097169d4b252c8_id": "Rc69..."}` manually. Actual behavior:For linked/connection fields, the module exposes `fieldID_id` suffixed keys in the nested object spec. Developers must manually construct payloads like:`[{"F69d64ac7f0097169d4b252c8_id": "Rc69..."}]`This defeats the primary value proposition of the native module over a Custom API Call, which is to abstract away raw field and record IDs. Impact:Teams building automations with linked fields are forced to hardcode field IDs into their Fusion scenar

I’m hoping someone can help me understand why reviewers/approvers on a proof are receiving two different approval experiences. In some cases, reviewers are prompted to “make a decision,” while in other cases they are only given the options “Approve,” “Approve with Changes,” or “Needs Work,” which is the workflow we want to use consistently. Because the options presented are not the same for all reviewers/approvers, it creates confusion in our review and approval process. Could you clarify what causes these different approval methods to be sent, and whether there is a setting or configuration that controls this behavior?I’m also seeing what appears to be a related issue when I upload a new document to a project. I automatically receive an approval notice in my Home widget, even though these documents do not actually require my approval. Note: when we upload documents, they automatically create a proof.   In this situation, I am consistently asked to ‘Make a Decision’.   This clutters th

Hello Community! Has anyone successfully used the “Create Record” automation available within Planning and been able to get linked fields to transfer between record types? The only options for creating record between record types is Name, Start Date, and End Date (we use a taxonomy workspace and link picklist there).

I posted something about this a while ago. However, the problem just keeps getting worse. I’ll trigger a scenario I’m working on by performing an action. The automation will run. And regardless of it runs successfully, it errors out, or returns a warning, I’m waiting for minutes before I can see what’s actually happening. I’m not the only person on my instance who is experiencing this. My colleague in a different business unit has to deal with the same latencies.Yeah, I know that if you trigger individual modules when building, you get an almost instantaneous turnaround with execution data. Yeah, I know I manually start an automation, I’ll get execution data almost instantaneously. However, I’m in the midst of building a complicated automation which requires it get triggered from inside of Workfront. Every time I run it, I have to wait between three to five minutes before I get any data back. And even when I get a failure pop up on my screen, I’ll go to the scenario where I’m still wai