Adobe Workfront

Hello, I know i can bring this in a task report, but Is there anyway I can bring in lastnote: note text in a note report?

Why is this feature important to you -My PMO manages projects for a Creative Studio Resource. At any given time there are more than 100 projects open. When we are looking at that teams Workload Balancer we can't tell easily which projects are running ahead or behind as there is no way to see the Priority. The Priority is a field in the Overview section on a Project under Basic Information that is an out of the box field. Today we utilize Flexible and Firm Deadline to know if the Creative Studio has more time or not for their task. They appear in green (Flexible) and red (Firm Deadline). How would you like the feature to work -If Priority was added as one of the Color Theme, then it would color code the projects on the Workload Balancer - green (Flexible) and red (Firm Deadline). Benefits - Team members can see which projects are most critical (green and red), fostering alignment and urgency. Color-coded priorities help visualize workload distribution and plan for capacity more effectiv

Hi everyone - I’m building a task report for my team. Most of the fields I am referencing are related to the project and task however there are a few fields I need to reference from the converted request. I haven’t been able to figure out how to pull in the converted request reference number. The best I can do is the request name. I tried to see if I could pull it in by tweaking text mode but I’m still learning and don’t really know what I’m doing.  Any assitance or guidance is appreciated. 

I built a document report that includes the Current Version » Proof Decision field.  I added a filter to include only those documents where this decision field is not blank.In addition to the expected decision values--approved, approved with changes, changes required, pending--I’m also seeing a “-” value:  Does anyone know what exactly this “-” value reflects?  I don’t work a lot with proofs themselves (I’m just reporting on them), so I’m not sure what conditions might produce this value.The API Explorer just lists the field as a non-groupable string, but it doesn’t specify possible values.Thanks.

Description - Would like to be able to have a portal set up where vendors could upload assets into projects without giving them any access to Workfront.Why is this feature important to you - This would allow vendor partners the ability to supply assets without needing to be a native user of Workfront. This would also help with internal security to intake assets that are needed but not granting accounts to external partners. This would eliminate manual uploads from internal employees after receiving the assets from the vendors via email, vendor tools, etc.How would you like the feature to work - Potentially leverage existing request area but allow them to be external facing and password protected to allow vendors to submit assets and have them map to the appropriate projects without using Fusion. Current Behavior: This does not exist. Currently, trying to leverage SharePoint and OneDrive integrations but there have been issues in the past with vendor partners not being able to these too

We are exploring ways on how we can receive files from vendors without having them in Workfront as a user.  Our use case is that we need to be able to receive upload files for projects but we do not want to have our vendor in the system as a user for security purposes. We are thinking of using the Sharepoint Integration and have the vendor upload through there and then connect to the projects as one possible solution but there have been issues with using SharePoint in the past with vendors. We are exploring Planning and are wondering if there could be a way to intake assets through a public form and then have an automation direct documents to the appropriate projects. Essentially using this form like a portal for vendors. Curious if anyone has done this before? Also, open to any ideas and recommendations for other solutions on how others are working to receive assets from vendors without giving Workfront access. Thank you!

Thanks to everyone who joined today’s workshop on Mastering Business Rules and Validation Logic in Adobe Workfront! The session was led by Adobe Workfront’s Tina Craig, Principal Business Consultant, Content Supply Chain, who shared several examples and best practices for using these new features to help with governance (and reduce the redundant reminders from admins)! Workshop Summary:Validation logic prevents form submission when criteria are met; business rules prevent object creation, deletion, and editing across system. Validation logic uses if-then statements on custom form fields; business rules are configured in the Setup area with broader scope (only available to customers on the Workflow Ultimate package). Practical examples like special character restrictions, character limits, date constraints, SLA enforcement, and multi-option selections were demo’ed.  Remember! Always test in Sandbox before production deployment to prevent workflow disruption. If you weren’t able to join

If i delete a folder in Fusion with contents, doe everything get deleted, or doed the content get placed in uncategorized?

We have Workfront contributors that will view a monthly report that contains a proof link, where they can view a document proof. For these users, all User notification settings set to off. However, when they click to view the Document Proof, Workfront is adding them as a “Reviewer” to the Document Proof and automatically subscribing them to receive Daily Summaries for that project. We tested resolution by keeping them as Reviewer with Proof notification settings disable. However, next month when they view the report again, it auto-defaults to start sending Daily Summaries. This is an issue, as these particular users cannot get bogged down with the details within those daily summaries for each project, and we need to control this scenario to protect their inbox.Has anyone else experienced this and/or found a resolution? I saw a past post in Experience League, but it was marked as “resolved” due to inactivity on comments, but with no resolution.

Hi folks!!What I want to do is have the total hours in a timesheet grouped up by a Team.Then have an average of that amount by the number of people in that team. So that it spits out something like, Team a 42 hrs, Team B 47 hours. Etc etc.I was trying to group the hours by home team, but then the average was calculating the average of the individual hours entered, so it was showing 2.66 and such as each individual input of hours was around 1-4 at a time.It may be something that it cant do as a native report. I got quite far in getting it to add up all the total hours in a timesheet for a team, but it cant average by the amount of users in the team, (at least it wasn’t a standard option).Any help as always appreciated!

Hi Workfront Community,Has anyone created functionality in Workfront that enables users to scope initiatives that are in the sales pipeline, but not yet converted to a closed deal?Currently, our Client Partners team puts together SOWs and scopes for various products and services we offer.  They do this in scoping spreadsheets right now to get an idea of estimated hours, resources, teams and revenue that will be involved.In the past, we had “scoping” projects in Workfront, defined by a custom project status, where we created tasks, with hours and resources, and although this worked for a while, users wanted something with more flexibility and thus moved to spreadsheets.Just seeing if anyone has implemented solutions in Workfront for this, as this will help with my ideation process.Thanks!Nick

I have a report that totals the number of label jobs in a day, and each job has a quantity.The results are grouped by day, so the summary tab has the date, count of jobs for each day, and a total sum of labels produced (custom field - number format).the data displays properly on the summary tab, and the complete data shows up on a PDF export, but the Sum column has no data in the excel data exports.  if i export tab delimited to notebook, the totals are also there.  any help?  thank you. 

Our users are reporting broken functionality inside Workfront’s ProofHQ tools. It also appears the UI has changed slightly, so we suspect there may have been some sort of recent release? I couldn’t find anything conclusive in the release log.  Please see screenshot below for a detailed report, but essentially the text selection tools are no longer populating text, line breaks aren’t being respected, and the “edit” button erases all content. We’ve also had users unable to save copy/pasted text.  Insights are much appreciated. Thanks!   

There should be a capability to either remove or disable the native Subject filed in Workfront request flows. If removal or disabling not possible at least should have capability to either modify its name or either move it to a different location on the form or within embedded custom form.We have been tackling with this issue from quite a while now, so having this adaptability of “Subject” field would be great feature.

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

A department is adding a new queue with a new custom form to their request project. The form shows the name but not any of the fields when someone goes to make the request. It only shows up for admins and for the project owner who does not have an admin license. I have tried creating a new form and it still did not work. Also created new fields and still not showing. Tried it on a different queue. The form is set as edit for those who submit, no restricted access. The queue is system wide. The project and form is shared with everyone. And the other queues and forms work. But when logged in as a user or if they try, it only shows the name of the form. Any ideas on why it is doing it and how to fix it?

We’ve set up a Kanban board in Workfront that pulls in specific projects and tasks associated to a team. We’re running into two major issues during testing:Cards cannot be manually moved across columns/stages on the Kanban board as expected. Some cards can be moved manually though!  Cards occasionally disappear entirely from the board (and become unsearchable), particularly after changing settings related to task completion behavior.More context:While testing, switching between manual vs. automatic task completion appeared to cause tasks to move off the board. In some cases, a page refresh or re‑indenting tasks caused the cards to reappear, but not consistently. Completing or moving certain tasks seems to trigger removal from the board, even when they should still qualify based on the board’s filters/settings.Questions:How can cards be manually moved between the Kanban columns in Workfront? How does task completion status (manual vs. automatic) impact card visibility on the Kanban boar

Workfront used to offer Bootcamp trainings for Admin and Fusion for a fee. Now I am only seeing “Manage Connections and Workflows in Adobe Workfront Fusion” offered OnDemand but it requires an Enterprise Learning Subscription. Are the bootcamps no longer offered?

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