Build better products with our product team
My idea is to offer the ability to pull Workfront Schedule Exceptions into Calendar reports in a manner similar to how user PTO can be displayed in a Calendar report. My company operates globally and uses multiple Workfront Schedules on user profiles with Exceptions to reflect regional office holidays. These Exceptions appear as holidays in the Workload Balancer and appropriately block resourcing, which works well for our resourcing needs. However, we would also like the ability to surface Workfront Schedule Exceptions in Calendar reports when reviewing task and project dates. Currently, this functionality is not supported by the API. Would love to see this added to the product roadmap.
My idea is to offer a date range filter in reports that ignores weekends. We use date ranges in many of our reports. When using a date range filter, including relative date ranges such as between $$TODAY-2D and $$TODAY, weekends are included in the calculation. As a result, when a report with the above relative date range is run on a Monday, tasks due on Thursday and Friday may not appear because the weekend days are counted in the range. We have used a Report Prompt, allowing users to manually enter the appropriate dates based on the day they are running the report. But we would like the ability to tell the system to ignore weekends when setting a date range filter in reports. Currently, Workfront offers the ability to ignore weekends in Schedules, Repeating Deliveries of reports, and creating Recurring Tasks.I would love to see a similar functionality built into report filters to tell the system to ignore weekends for date ranges. Thanks!
No task duration type, constraint type, or predecessor dependency type allows Project Managers to create tasks with variable durations. We have several instances where task A and C are set dates and task B falls between them. This duration can be 50+ business days and changes as task A and C move based on external factors. This also happens so frequently and in different workflows that a Fusion scenario isn’t feasible.Ideally Workfront would have a new predessor type that drives both the start and end date independently instead of depending on a planned duration. Task B planned start date starts when Task A’s end date finishes and Task B’s planned completion date finishes when Task C’s start date starts. The current work around is to set fixed dates for the task and manually update them as the other tasks recalculate but that takes a lot of diligence and effort on the project manager.
In Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), performing a rollout from a blueprint currently requires the initiating user to have at least read access to all live copies associated with that blueprint. If the user lacks access to even one unrelated or newly created live copy, the rollout operation fails—even when the user has full permissions on the blueprint and the intended target live copy.This behavior creates significant operational challenges in large, multi-site or multi-tenant environments where: Editors are intentionally restricted from accessing unrelated live copies New sites are frequently added under the same blueprint Permission models are designed to enforce strict content isolation As a result, editors are blocked from performing legitimate rollouts, while administrators can perform the same action successfully. This forces teams to either over-provision permissions, rely on admin intervention, or introduce service-account-based workarounds, all of which increase operational risk and complexity. Requested Enhancement:Allow blueprint rollouts to: Succeed based solely on permissions for the blueprint and the target live copy(s), or Gracefully ignore live copies to which the user does not have access, or Provide a configuration option to control this behavior at the blueprint or system level This enhancement would greatly improve scalability, security, and usability for enterprise AEM implementations, while aligning rollout behavior with least-privilege access principles
In Queries > Templates, there is currently no way to organise query templates beyond a flat list with a search bar. As the number of templates grows, this creates several usability challenges: No ability to create folders or group queries by use case, brand, or purpose Users must remember the exact query name to find it The search is case-sensitive, so queries cannot be found unless the name is typed exactly This often results in duplicate or sample queries being recreated multiple times, leading to clutter and inefficiency For teams working extensively with queries (especially in enterprise environments), this significantly impacts productivity and governance.
In Adobe Workfront Goals, the current UI offers very limited view customization compared to Projects or Tasks.At the Goals and Progress Indicators levels, users cannot:- Add or remove columns- Display additional fields- Group or sort data- Customize or save viewsIn particular, at the Progress Indicators level, there is no ability to group, filter, or customize the view in a similar way to task lists.These limitations make it difficult to review goals at scale and reduce usability for leadership and program-level reviews.
Before Adobe combined the Requestor and Reviewer Access Levels, reviewer had the ability to view project, portfolio, reports, etc.. if the share setting 'Everyone in the system can view' was selected. Since we now only have one Access Level called Contributor, this setting is non-functional and explicit shared users must be selected otherwise Contributors cannot view these resources.This is clearly and oversight when merging the previous access levels and needs to be reversed. The 'Everyone in the system can view' is false and should not be an exception with a hidden meaning that is not reflected in any documentation.
I would love to see the Comment stream in the Update sections change. Most users complain that the threads are hard to follow and expect to be able to read from top to bottom with the latest at the bottom similar to how Slack, Teams, Reddit, WhatsApp and other messaging/social media platforms function. Below is a quote from one of my Super Users“Today, it is difficult to find the latest message in the Updates section. It may be at the top in the latest thread, or it may be somewhere below in response to an older thread, because older threads are lower on the page. Instead, Updates could be arranged oldest to newest - top to bottom. When you open the Updates, you could see the latest message at the bottom. The UI could have a message that tells you when there are unread messages above that you should scroll back to see. But overall, this would prevent the hunt for the latest as the latest will always be at the bottom. This is similar to the flow of iMessage threads where the further up you go, the further back in history you go, or how Slack handles messages.”
It would be nice to be able to programmatically access the QA URLs for a current running AB test. We run a small subset of front end tests in our CI pipeline and we need the tests to be deterministic. The way we do that now is manually retrieve the QA URL from the adobe target GUI. We'd like to have the test determine the experience without having to retrieve the QA URL manually. I have two suggestions:First: Add it to the existing `Get AB Activity by ID` Second: Create a new API to `Get AB Activity QA URLs by ID` Suggested response: "experiences": [ { "experienceLocalId": 0, "name": "Experience A", "visitorPercentage": 34, "qaUrl": "at_preview_token=g5xKOs9QjAl3KN%2BwvyAAmnWEFq%2Br1NJA9GWwjZnLpb4%3D&at_preview_index=1_1&at_preview_listed_activities_only=true&at_preview_evaluate_as_true_audience_ids=1100025", "offerLocations": [ { "locationLocalId": 0, "offerId": 395818 } ] }, { "experienceLocalId": 1, "name": "Experience B", "visitorPercentage": 33, "qaUrl": "at_preview_token=g5xKOs9QjAl3KN%2BwvyAAmnWEFq%2Br1NJA9GWwjZnLpb4%3D&at_preview_index=1_2&at_preview_listed_activities_only=true&at_preview_evaluate_as_true_audience_ids=1100025", "offerLocations": [ { "locationLocalId": 0, "offerId": 395819 } ] } ] If the qaUrl property is too verbose it can be broken up into its separate properties:at_preview_token, at_preview_index,at_preview_listed_activities_only,at_preview_evaluate_as_true_audience_ids
In the Microsoft Store version of Adobe Report Builder, the upload limit for scheduled reports was reduced:Current limit: 4 MB Previous limit: 5 MBAs a result, existing automated reports fail, especially more complex reports with multiple dimensions and metrics.Requested improvement:Increase the scheduled report upload limit back to at least 5 MBThis small change would significantly improve day‑to‑day usability, as many of our existing reports are between 4 MB and 5 MB.
It would be extremely useful to be able to utilize $TriggerObject in Email Script Tokens for the "<Custom Object Name> is Updated" trigger, in addition to the "Added to Opportunity", "Opportunity is Updated", and "Added to <Custom Object Name>" triggers. This would provide the following benefits: Increased flexibility in Email sends using VTL tokens Increased efficiency in API use Increased scope of Custom Object use
When we try to send emails from AJO we get this alert. Saying that the opt-out link is missing in the body.But his is not entirely true. The link is there, but is placed inside a fragment. To us it seems like AJO is not able to see this link when it is inside a fragment, and then returns a alert. We have placed the link inside a footer fragment, that is not broken before sending the email. We are also using if/or logic controlled by variables to show the right language for that link. This also might be a reason for AJO is not able to recognize the link. But it is there, and it is working. Could the code checker that looks for this opt-out link also try to look for this code inside fragments?
In multi-brand Adobe Experience Platform implementations, consent information is often captured as event data, with each brand emitting its own consent events.These consent signals are then elevated to the profile level using Computed Attributes, so they can be reused consistently across audiences, consent policies, and activation use cases.However, Computed Attributes currently have a maximum lookback period of 6 months. If no qualifying events are present within that window, the computed attribute value is nullified, even when no explicit consent change or withdrawal has occurred.This behavior creates challenges when modeling consent, which is inherently a stateful attribute, not a time-bound behavioral signal. Suggested EnhancementProvide an option for Computed Attributes to retain the last known value beyond the lookback window, unless:A new qualifying event updates the value, orAn explicit revocation / change event is received.This could be implemented as:A configuration option such as “Persist last value until updated” Other profile attributes in AEP naturally persist until explicitly updated. Introducing similar persistence semantics for state-based computed attributes would improve consistency across the platform.
We often run into all kind of problems with the email designer during a AJO upgrade/release. Created content disappears, variable settings used in fragments changes/disappears, Image sizes changes etc etc. All this things come back from the users as bug reports. When investigating the issues, we often need to conclude that the error/experienced behavior most come from hickup in the code during the code upgrade. Suddenly all is back to normal again, the day after, without changing anything. Out theory is that a AJO upgrade/code change possible has some impacted on the use of the email designer during the code upgrade. Maybe it is hard or difficult to store things at the same time the source code is been updated. At least we experience that it might be a challenge here. We would therefor like to have the option to “lock” the email editor and other components that creates things in AJO during an update . The lock could explain that this feature is temporary locked caused by an code upgrade that will take xxxxx minutes/hours. That would probably cause less frustration and reduced feedback about strange behavior reported as a bug. It might also be other parts of the platform that suffers the same, like creation of audiences and offers.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Assigning Product Profiles to IMS User Groups Use-case: We are currently assigning Product Profiles individually to IMS Users. These users are grouped under IMS Groups. These groups have access to different Adobe Cloud Products. Assigning Product Profiles to IMS Groups should be a quicker solution. Current/Experienced Behavior: AEM currently does not support assigning groups to profiles. Users should be added individually instead. Improved/Expected Behavior: Adding User Groups to Product Profiles should be allowed to enable quicker access. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Release 2023.4.12142.20230526T152858Z Customer-name/Organization name: TA Digital Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable): @kautuk_sahni
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
OKSorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
OK