Adobe Workfront

Planning API: Field Search and Mapping LimitationsThere is no straightforward way to search or filter fields by name in the Planning API. Field IDs are not exposed in the Workfront UI, requiring additional API calls just to identify them. Mapping a field ID to its record type then requires chaining multiple searches, when this should ideally be handled in a single call. Planning API: Create/Read/UpdateFrom a Fusion developer perspective, it would be beneficial to support full programmatic create, read, update, and delete operations for record types and their fields. It would also be valuable to officially support patching individual record options. While we were able to accomplish this through an undocumented approach, having it formally available in the public API would significantly improve reliability and long‑term supportability.

Preserve Connected Record Picklist Values in AutomationsIn Workfront Planning, I’d love the ability to create a record and send it to another record type, either within the same workspace or across workspaces, while preserving picklist values from connected records.Right now, when using automations, those picklist values don’t carry over if they come from connected records. For teams using a central taxonomy model, this becomes a real challenge. We end up having to rely on Fusion to handle what feels like a core in-app use case, including working through complex JSON structures and API calls just to pass multi-select values. It works, but it adds a lot of unnecessary complexity for something that should be native. Automatically Associate Projects to Portfolios and ProgramsThere’s also a related gap when creating portfolios and programs through automations. While you can create them, there’s no way to automatically associate the projects generated from those automations back to the port

Ready to take your automation game to the True North of efficiency with ​@RowvillBh1 and I?Join us for an exciting, hands-on exploration of how to bridge the gap between Adobe Workfront and OpenAI using Fusion. Whether you’re based in the GTA, dialing in from across Canada, or joining us from south of the border, this session is designed for anyone ready to work smarter—not harder.In this deep dive, we’ll prove that you don’t need to be a developer to build world-class automations. Our guest speaker, Kaylee Richard, will showcase a live, practical scenario: transforming raw text from a Workfront request into actionable intelligence via OpenAI.What’s in it for you? See it in Action: A front-row seat to a live Fusion + OpenAI integration. Demystify AI: Learn how to make OpenAI accessible and straightforward within your existing Workfront environment. Connect & Grow: Network with a community of fellow enthusiasts and Certified experts who are leading the charge in work management.

I have a template that utilizes fixed dates for the task constraints. When I create a project with the template, no matter what the start date of the project is, my tasks are all defaulting to decimal durations.  If I create a project today with a start date of tomorrow at 9AM. The tasks were all created using that as the start date and time, but the end dates are defaulting to 2 pm resulting in less than full days.    

Does anyone happen to know exactly how monthly user availability is calculated in Planner? I’m working on a utilization project with WF data pulled via API call.  Three different schedules are in play for my user group--US, UK, and Malaysia.  I’ve taken schedule weekdays, schedule holidays, and individual user PTO into account to calculate availability.  When looking at monthly totals, my calculations for US and UK users match what’s shown in Planner.  However, the totals for users in Malaysia are slightly off. For example, here’s the November 2025 availability in Planner for one of users in Malaysia.  The Malaysia schedule had no holiday exceptions that month, and this user had no PTO.  November had 20 weekdays, so with a schedule of M-F 9-5, the available hours for the month should be 160, not 164:  If I switch the planner view from Month to Week, all the weeks in November (either fully in November or partially) correctly show an availability of 40.  I’m guessing differing time zones

We are wanting to bring our proofreading process into Workfront, but are struggling to find the easiest way to do so.Our proofreaders don’t work on specific work as it’s based on what’s coming in and how busy each of them are. Our current way is outside of Workfront, where they pick up the PDF and proofread that file to give back to the team to make edits. We would like to include them in the proofing process that happens within Workfront currently. Since there isn’t a way to pull a report to show what a person has to review (as we don’t need them to approve the proof), we are finding that the only way to add them into the Workfront Proofing process is to add both proofreaders as reviewers & approvers. The owner of the proof would then remove the proofreader who doesn’t make a decision on the proof since the other one did the work. We can use the reports that we have built for them to see what work they have and show them how they can see if the other one is in the proof or not.Doe

Hi Smart Brains, I am trying to solve a validation problem here. On the typehead field for choosing campaigns, I want to add a validation to select campaign only created using a particular template. Else I would like to display a message saying this is not the correct type of campaign. Any hints how does that work? Thanks,Nisha

Has anyone figured out a way to exclude holidays in calculated fields in an efficient way?Our use case is we have 8 calculated fields and need the ability to not pull in the business holidays. Our back up solution is to create another set of fields where a user can do manual override dates but this adds additional work, additional fields we need pull into reports and adds more clutter to the form so wanted to gut check if there were any workarounds.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!   

Hello :)I'm trying to find this object in layout templates to turn it off - approvals tab in documents. I was able to find and hide the approvals tab in all other objects but can't find this one. I can't find document in this list to edit the side panel the way I did for the others. What am I missing? 

Can a validation rule be setup that only allows users from a particular group to access a form field?  I’m trying something along these lines but I can’t get the syntax correct.IF($$USER.groupIDs="69fcf9d70002183a0944fbb90b78a5ab", "Only members of the LP Approval group can edit this field.")Any help would be appreciated.ThanksFrank

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

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