Product Communities

Description - To be able to pull data by specifying the exact hours in the API 1.4 request for Adobe AnalyticsWhy is this feature important to you - The client is looking to pull data only for specific hours this way.How would you like the feature to work - To be able to pull data by specifying the exact hours in the API 1.4 request for Adobe AnalyticsCurrent Behaviour - The current behaviour only lets us specify the dates in the API 1.4 request but not the specific hours.

We are currently using WF across several agencies in different countries and are using Groups for our department structure as well as our various global agencies.It would be great if like all of the other ways to customize various settings by Group, if we could customize expenses by Group. Certain expense types aren't relevant for certain agencies.

I need to access Report Summary View on reports with calculated views. Often times I create advanced reports using text mode but the data does not aggregate on Summary view.

Issue: Extracting from the mobile AEP SDK "Target.getTntId" is very slow & "Target.getSessionId" does not exist. Details: Albertsons team is looking for ways to extract `sessionId`, `tntId`, `ECID` from the mobile AEP SDK as quickly as possible (to forward to another API call to load Recs).Observations:1. Testing `Target.getTntId` with callback, noticed that this promise-function always resolves after Target response is back. (Just like documented.) This took about 0.4 seconds on Vadym's simulator device with high-speed Internet connection. This is really slow.2. Since `tntId` is cached in the app, in reality we could always read it from cache to eliminate waiting for `tntId` via callback. This surely would improve the performance, however, it is an unsupported method.3. There is no `Target.getSessionId` available in AEP SDK. (Vadym understands it was not designed to be available, but in current case, it must be retrieved from cache, which is an unsupported method.) `Target.ge

As it stands, if an approver is added and subsequently removed from a proof approval workflow, the filters, detailed below, do not seem to work correctly. The first one does not remove these records and the second one seems to remove other records that should be included;Proof Approval>Approver Decision>Equals>Pending" filter"Proof Approval>Awaiting Decision=True"It would be great to tidy this up so that only users who are currently included in the workflow are reported on and all the users who are currently included in the workflow are reported on.

When more than one person assigned to a task, it would be nice to know to which assignee has completed his or her part of the task within the task report, without having to go into the task itself.

There should be a way to send sample emails to yourself or others on your team to order to test all your A/B test variations in an email program. It seems this feature is not available now and you can only send a sample of the "A" version. 

Issue: In order for me to create an audience that looks for visors within a 100 mile radius I end up having to make an audience filled with zip codes or city names. Feature: Please create a feature that allows me to quickly build an audience form the UI where by I specific the zip code and then select the option to extend that audience to 10, 20, 50, 100 miles of that zip code.

It will be very beneficial to have the ability to search for documents within a project using key words rather having to do this as a global search.

When we convert a request/issue to a task or project, we are losing the customer/submitter name. We need this info to come over with the conversion. We'd also like to have the details come over on when the request was entered, comments on the request, etc... Currently we lose all that.

We have a request process. When a customer submits a request we either convert it to a task or a project. Either way - we lose the customer name / detail on the conversion. We need a field to have this information come over with the conversion.

I would like to have the ability to either Move, Insert or Sort a property in Custom Prompt's within a Report.

Some times it would take just need a quick reference to confirm which term to use in creating a statement for a filter or a prompt when creating or modifying a report. Currently, you need to search the report documentation to find the answer. If there was a glossary of terms, it would be very handy.

Is there a way to view an archived proof, without actually un-archiving it? I just want to " view ", not activate, un-archive or comment... just view. I just need to quickly see the comments that were made. ie: someone made a specific comment to 1 of many proofs, I need to find that comment without unarchived and then re-archiving a lot of proofshttps://one.workfront.com/s/question/0D50z00006Px4EgCAJ/archived-proofs

I would like the ability to turn off this 'Feature' of carrying over custom messages to new versions. Most of the messages we send out are only relevant for one instance i.e. one version (asking someone to make a decision on the document).

Would like the ability to filter on week days only when using the date based wildcards in reports. Currently, as a default, they only pull in calendar days so if you have a filter where you only go back 2 days and you run the report on Monday, you won't see any data.

For our request queue custom forms, we have a calculated field for "scoring" that pulls in the value of all the fields in the form. That score is then used for triaging and prioritizing the requests. However, Workfront will not allow you to use the same value for multiple options within the same field, and sometimes 2 options need to have the same score. For example, if someone is selecting between President, CEO, and CFO in a custom field about target audience, and we would want President and CEO to both have a value of 5 and CFO to have a value of 3. I understand the confusion this would cause in Fusion, but then perhaps there should be a third option added for field options - label, value, and score.

Via Marketo UI, Admin should have an ability to import list to create/update/delete the users.

Description - one can now change rule or data element and save it without attaching to particular library. It leads to when second person could work with the same rule or data element and make his own changes then publish it. And publishing to production will release changes from both web-masters due to second person won't have idea idea that he worked with someone's changes.  DTM had such feature. It looked like clocks. If someone saw this active indicator, one would find previous person who commited changes before continuing working with rule or data element. Also we don't have option now to see who commited changes. Which is problematic sometimes. Our company also forced to add Last Names to Libraries to get an idea who last worked with components of property.Why is this feature important to you - to make process of working with Launch more simple. And also to add feature that will help to review last changes and connect them to concrete person in company.How would you lik

I am the project owner and I am going to be OOTO. I want to ensure that my coverage gets notified when tasks are marked complete so the job can move along as planned. Right now, the only way I am able to do this is to update the project owner prior to my departure. It would be great if there was a way to mark someone as interim project owner to ensure they get all the proper notifications while I am OOTO. Right now, we use the Sponsor field for managers so they have insight into a direct reports work, but we have considered doing away with that and using it for OOTO coverage.

The current scheduler allows view "group by role" - clean review of resource availability by role. This functionality is not currently available in workload balancer that could be a nice enhancement.

Our compliance team would love the option to export the print summary for a proof by version. Currently you can select all versions or current versions, but not previous versions. Sometime we have the need to see what comments and edits were made to a specific version and having to comb through multiple versions and comments can be cumbersome for our compliance department.

Description - In the documentation for the BDIA (Bulk Data Insertion API), there are 5 Limitations on uploads. One is the requirement that the report suite be configured as "Timestamp Optional" or "Timestamp enabled."  Last month, my team began uploading files using the BDIA for the first time. After each upload, the API provided a response that suggested the upload was successful (see an excerpt of the API response below). However, our QA efforts showed that the data was not present in Analytics even after days of uploads. We eventually determined through other means that the root cause was that the report suite had not been set to "Timestamp Optional". The data uploads were failing, yet the API response did not reflect this.Why is this feature important to you - The data we were uploading is critical for some of our business processes, and those processes were delayed while we investigated the root cause of the failed uploads. We also spent more engineer time than

Currently, proof email notifications add new comments for the entire comment thread, but there is no way to tell which of the comments are actually new. A date and time stamp to each comment would be helpful when a user is skimming through the email for what is actually new.In a proof, they have the date/time stamp for each comment.But when the email notification comes through, there is no way to tell what is new and what has been added to.

Currently only the libraries in the published column display the date they were published. It would be very helpful if libraries that have been built to development or staging displayed the date they were last built in the same manner. This would save a lot of time since you wouldn't have to go open up each library in order to see what date it was built last. In some of my Launch properties I have 10-12 libraries waiting in the development queue for code fixes from our developers. If this was implemented I could see at a glance which ones needed to be built again and which ones had a more current build.