Product Communities

I have a requirement for bulk metadata schema creation in AEM Assets using a CSV file, and I’m looking for suggestions or recommended approaches.Currently, I know the manual process for creating a custom metadata schema:Go to Projects.html Open Adobe Experience Manager Navigate to Tools -> Assets Open Metadata Schema Select the Default schema and click Edit Add fields/tabs/properties manually in the metadata formThis approach works for a small number of schemas, but in my requirement we receive metadata definitions through a CSV file containing many fields and schema configurations.Requirement:Create multiple custom metadata schemas in bulk Reuse or extend the Default metadata schema Add new tabs and additional metadata properties dynamically Preferably automate through code instead of manual UI configurationNote: we cannot use any feature provided by ACS commons, how to create custom utility for bulk creation.Any suggestions, best practices, or Adobe-recommended approaches would be

Hi Community!I’m hoping to get some guidance on a verification flow we’re trying to build using Marketo Forms and Landing Pages.The goal is to have members complete a short “verification” form on Page 1 before being allowed to access another form on Page 2. Ideally, we’d like to keep the experience as seamless as possible and avoid adding extra clicks or requiring an email in between.We have a similar campaign today where a member fills out a form using proxy fields. Then, in an email, we use a Velocity script to compare those proxy fields against the real lead fields in Marketo to validate the member using their submitted information and email address.What I’m trying to do now is avoid needing that email step. I attempted to mimic the same validation concept using custom HTML/JavaScript on a landing page, but I’m running into issues. The Page 1 form submission is updating the lead record — I can see the data value changes in the activity log... but when the member is redirected to Pag

I am  trying to build a calculated field in a Workfront custom form to automatically generate a complete UTM tracking URL based on user-entered campaign parameters.The goal is for users to populate fields such as Destination URL, UTM Medium, UTM Source, UTM Campaign, and Contact Type, and have the form dynamically concatenate those values into a finalized URL string.Example desired output:https://example.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=springcampaign&contact_type=prospectWondering if anyone has done this before as I’m having issues getting the calculated field to generate the final url.  

I have a requirement to add a custom column to the list view along with the other OOTB fields in Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) Cloud instance. Could anyone guide me on how to achieve this? I want to add a column with header Content-Type that will fetch the value from jcr:content/metadata/content-type.I could achieve this with the reorder.jsp file pointed here: https://experience-aem.blogspot.com/2019/10/aem-6520-aem-assets-add-custom-metadata-columns-in-assets-console-list-view.html but this does not work in AEM Cloud.Again, this URL also explains in another way : https://experience-aem.blogspot.com/2019/08/aem-6510-adding-custom-metadata-columns-in-list-view-of-assets-search-console.html but again this conflicts with OOTB behavior and breaks the search functionality in AEMaaCS.Any concrete solution that works on cloud?

Hi! I’ve created a transactional campaign for SMS and in payload I need to send a link:{{context.link}} I’m using an SMS Channel with a configured SMS Subdomain but user’s receiving the full link, not the one used in SMS Subdomain. So, is SMS Subdomain working for transactional campaings? Thanks.

We LOVE the new sharable report folders feature- it is really helping us with organization and auditing of reports. One thing that would really be great is if we could add a sharable folder to the report when creating or editing it. Right now That can only be done through the native reports tab.

Hello! I’m a researcher on Adobe’s Design Research & Strategy team. I am looking for participants who work with digital content and assets directly in AEM or other enterprise-level CMS platforms. Specifically, we want to speak with people who are creating, reviewing, and/or managing digital content themselves. We seek to learn more about how you create, review, or manage content, what friction points, if any, you experience, and how you might be leveraging AI to assist with your work.  Importantly, the design team also wants to get feedback on a new experience they’re considering building. If you think you’d be a good fit, reply here (please @ me so I’m notified) or email me at lauber@adobe.com 

Hi ,  looking for guidance on a Scene7 + asset publish flow.We have a custom workflow where:We programmatically trigger the Scene7 workflow to generate renditions.Once processing appears complete, we publish the asset.After publish, we call an API on the Publish instance to retrieve asset details.Since Scene7 processing is asynchronous, we added an event listener to monitor the Scene7 status as publishComplete , before triggering publish.However, we are still seeing inconsistent API responses from Publish, which makes us think there may be a timing/replication/indexing/cache gap somewhere in the flow.One recurring issue we’ve observed:The asset shows “Publish Complete” status on AuthorBut the same asset appears with “ReprocessStart” status on PublishWe’re trying to understand why this discrepancy occurs and what the recommended integration pattern is for ensuring Scene7 processing is truly complete before publish/API consumption. We have already enabled the OOTB Scene7ActivationJobCons

HI ⁠Previously when I would click in the "assignment" cell in WF a drop down list of all my team would appear, where I could select the eng. from the drop down list.Now Nothing...  do you know why this has changed? how do I get this functionality back?

I’d like to transfer my Adobe Community profile to a different email address. Is that doable?

In AEP - Profiles/Overview there are these two widgets:Customer AI scoring summaryCustomer AI distribution of scoresNothing is displayed, but a message saying: "You don’t have permission to access this feature.Permission needed: view-is-customer-ai, manage-is-customer-ai"What are these two permissions and how can they be granted? I checked under Administration/Permissions but couldn't find anything of the sorts. Adobe documentation didn't help either.Thanks.

Hello Community,​I am looking for clarification on the prioritization logic in Adobe Journey Optimizer (AJO) when a Code-based Campaign and a Code-based Journey are active on the same surface.​The Scenario:I have a Code-based Campaign and a Code-based Journey targeting the exact same surface URL.​Campaign Priority: Set to a higher score.​Journey Priority: Set to a lower score.​The Observation:​On First Visit: The Campaign experience is displayed (as expected based on priority).​On Second Visit: The Journey experience is displayed, even though the Campaign is higher priority.​The "Journey State" Factor:Within my Journey, once a user qualifies, they trigger a Code-based Experience action, which is immediately followed by a 21-day Wait activity.​I suspect that once the user enters the Wait period, they are considered "realized" or "locked" in that journey state. My hypothesis is that because the profile is effectively held within that journey instance for the 21-day duration, the system i

 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/maria-velankanni_here-it-isthe-session-i-promised-feel-share-7463621592707907586-xTUN/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAXMKHYBBwj7gmFWlInmKCVMGZ1DNBcXGMs

Hi All, I am trying to use OOTB Archive extraction process step with launcher, but when zip file is having nested folder and files , launcher is not able to extract it properly wheras with manual triggering workflow works as it is triggered by admin.With launcher I am getting below error org.apache.sling.api.resource.PersistenceException: Can't create valid output path    at com.day.cq.dam.core.impl.unzip.impl.UnzipServiceImpl.getValidPath(UnzipServiceImpl.java:206) [com.day.cq.dam.cq-dam-core:5.15.190]    at com.day.cq.dam.core.impl.unzip.impl.UnzipServiceImpl.validateFilePath(UnzipServiceImpl.java:220) [com.day.cq.dam.cq-dam-core:5.15.190]    at com.day.cq.dam.core.impl.unzip.impl.UnzipServiceImpl.handleFile(UnzipServiceImpl.java:211) [com.day.cq.dam.cq-dam-core:5.15.190]    at com.day.cq.dam.core.impl.unzip.impl.UnzipServiceImpl.processZipEntry(UnzipServiceImpl.java:159) [com.day.cq.dam.cq-dam-core:5.15.190]    at com.day.cq.dam.core.impl.unzip.impl.UnzipServiceImpl.processEntries(U

Hi Workfront Community,Crowd-surfing for ideas on how to constructively guide some conversations we’ve been having internally at my org, hoping others dealing with the same challenge might have perspectives to share. With the push to adopt LLM tools, we’re getting requests from users that have exported Workfront data and used Copilot/Cursor to create reports/dashboards that they want built in Workfront.  The Problem(s):Suggested metrics/KPIs calculated based on completely fabricated/hallucinated data  Suggested metrics/KPIs that sound good on paper, but are inedible word-salads   Suggested metrics/KPIs that ARE reasonable, but rely on analytical capabilities and/or functionality that Workfront reporting tools simply don’t have.  Suggested metrics/KPIs that rely on functionality Workfront DOES have, but we don’t have implemented, licensed or don’t use in the way necessary to create the calculations Suggested visualizations that either won’t actually work, or again aren’t supported by an

Thank you to everyone that attended the recent WUG Colorado event on May 19, 2026, titled Begin the Climb! Workfront and AEM Assets in Your Content Supply Chain.  You can see a replay of the event below as well as the deck we went through with resources, links, and tips on how to envision your content supply chain with Workfront and AEM Assets.Click Here for the deckClick Here for the replay (YouTube)

Thanks to everyone who joined today’s workshop, Inside the Workfront Admin Role: 10 Lessons from My First Two Years, featuring Jen Mancini ​@JenniferMa10 , Adobe Workfront Application Owner at Aramark and co-lead of the Philadelphia Workfront User Group (WUG) chapter! The passion and energy that Jen brought with the validation that mistakes are okay makes this a must-watch session for any Workfront Admin, new or experienced!  Workshop Summary:Jen shared ten key lessons learned during her first two years as a Workfront administrator, focusing on the importance of understanding team workflows before configuring the system and establishing clear guiding principles for all Workfront decisions. The session emphasized the value of listening to all stakeholders, including critics, leveraging continuous learning resources like Experience League, and building a network of Workfront ambassadors to support adoption and change management. Workflows evolve constantly so document all system changes

Hi everyone! 😁Thought I’d share a tool I’ve used in my own consulting, and am now making open source. Hope others may find it useful. No pitch here, just sharing with the community.Working with Workfront Fusion scenarios gets complicated at scale. You're inheriting large multi-hundred-module workflows, tracking changes across environments, comparing versions, trying to figure out where a single field name is referenced. Without tooling, all of this becomes impossible.That's why I built Tekmera Blueprint Explorer.It has three core functions:🔹 search: find a keyword across multiple blueprints. Critical when a field name changes and you need to find every reference, or when checking for hardcoded values across scenarios. Has saved me hundreds of hours.🔹 diff: compare two blueprints to see what's changed between versions. Critical when promoting from dev to prod, so you know exactly what you're shipping.🔹 report: generate a high-level snapshot of what a Fusion scenario does.There are s

We have a requirement involving seven different templates in AEM. For each template, we want to allow the Experience Fragment component, but with a restriction: the Experience Fragment should only allow the components that are specifically permitted for that template.In other words, each template has its own set of allowed components, and the Experience Fragment should enforce those rules so that authors cannot add components outside the template’s defined scope.We would like to understand: What is the best possible solution to achieve this scenario? Are there recommended practices or configurations in AEM to enforce template-specific component restrictions within Experience Fragments? Any guidance or examples from the community on how to implement this in a scalable and maintainable way would be greatly appreciated.

Hello all, Sharing Part 2 of my AEMaaCS security hardening series:Covering a few practical improvements we implemented around: block-first dispatcher security restricting Content Fragment access through service users safer ResourceResolver handling improved 404 handling reducing unnecessary content requests The focus is less on “patching vulnerabilities” and more on building a cleaner security-first architecture for AEM as a Cloud Service.Read here: Hardening AEM as a Cloud Service — Part 2: Block-First Dispatcher Security and Safer Content Fragment Access Would love to hear how others approach dispatcher hardening and publish-tier security in their AEM projects.

I have ran Best Practice Analyzer and found Content Area Violation on some of the shared fields across the project. The path: /apps/project-1/component/granite/ui/components/coral/color-picker/variations/ violates content areas override final path: /libs/granite/ui/components/foundation/form/select  and the content.xml for the component  is having as below   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <jcr:root xmlns:sling="http://sling.apache.org/jcr/sling/1.0" xmlns:jcr="http://www.jcp.org/jcr/1.0"     jcr:primaryType="sling:Folder"     sling:resourceSuperType="granite/ui/components/foundation/form/select"/>   How to resolve this Content Area Violation?

Hi Team,We are working on a Workfront Request Queue where multiple Queue Topics are configured under the same request queue project.Example:Adobe DAM Youtube Social Media PublishOur requirement is:Use a single custom form Dynamically show different fields or dropdown values based on the selected Queue Topic.For example:If user selects Queue Topic = Adobe DAM → show DAM-related fields If user selects Queue Topic = Youtube → show Youtube-related fieldsWe tried using:Display Logic Advanced Logic queueTopicID conditionsHowever:Queue Topic is not available in Display Logic Advanced expression editing is restricted in our package/environmentQuestions:Is Queue Topic–based field visibility supported natively in Workfront custom forms? Is there any supported way to reference queueTopicID in display logic? What is the recommended best practice: Separate custom forms per Queue Topic? Helper dropdown field + display logic? Fusion-based solution? Would appreciate guidance from anyone who has impl

Hello, I have a 2 custom forms, one at the project level, the other at the issue level. They both have 2 typehead fields that both live on each level. When trying to pull the value at the issue level I do not get a value. The view never gives me the option to pick between what level. Any help would be greatly appreciated. 

I created a segment based on a fallout touchpoint in Adobe Analytics, and then used that segment within a calculated metric wrapped around an event.However, I’m noticing that the value of this metric changes depending on the overall date range selected in the report.For example, when I set the date range from January 1 to January 31, the metric count for January is 100. But when I expand the date range from January 1 to April 30 and then break the data down by month, the count for January increases to 200 instead of remaining at 100 (which I believe is the correct value).Can someone explain why this is happening? Is this expected behaviour when using a segment derived from a fallout touchpoint within a calculated metric?