Product Communities

Hi community,I’m working on an AJO → ACC integration and running into a limitation with nested arrays in event payloads, such as cart items or receipt line items.From what I can tell, AJO Custom Action mapping handles flat fields well, but not nested collections cleanly.The options I’m aware of are:serialize the array upstream and parse it in ACC use middleware to reshape the payload before ACC send an ID and let ACC retrieve the full data separatelyMy main question:What approach are teams actually using in production for this, and which one has proven most scalable and maintainable?If there is a native way to pass nested arrays through AJO Custom Actions directly, I’d love to know.Thanks.

  In my recent project I extensively worked with Permission Sensitive Caching and Closed User Groups, aka. CUGs. It turned out to be a little more complex than I anticipated. So I started a 6-part article series to document and share my learnings: Part 1 — Using Closed User Groups to Control Access Part 2 — Setting up the Dispatcher and CDN for Permission Sensitive Caching  Stay tuned for more to come. 

Hi, I am looking to see if there is a way to get notifications to a webhook when Activities are created/updated in Target? 

I’m using Adobe Acrobat Classic.  I can’t figure out how to force the software to open a new window for each PDF file.  It combines them on the same window and I can’t alt-tab between PFD files for quick reviews to see documents changes between PDF files.  Can anyone help?

A user is unable to see the deadline in the report. I have raised this ticket multiple times, but the issue still persists.Upon checking, I found that this is related to how the stage deadlines are configured. For example, if there are two stages and the user is a reviewer only in Stage 1 (with no involvement in Stage 2), Adobe Workfront appears to consider only the overall (final) deadline rather than the stage-specific deadline. As a result, the relevant deadline is not visible to the user in the report.Could you please confirm:Is there an option to display stage-specific deadlines for users based on their assigned stage within reports?If not, is there any recommended workaround to achieve this?Looking forward to your guidance on this.

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

I’m hoping someone can help me understand why reviewers/approvers on a proof are receiving two different approval experiences. In some cases, reviewers are prompted to “make a decision,” while in other cases they are only given the options “Approve,” “Approve with Changes,” or “Needs Work,” which is the workflow we want to use consistently. Because the options presented are not the same for all reviewers/approvers, it creates confusion in our review and approval process. Could you clarify what causes these different approval methods to be sent, and whether there is a setting or configuration that controls this behavior?I’m also seeing what appears to be a related issue when I upload a new document to a project. I automatically receive an approval notice in my Home widget, even though these documents do not actually require my approval. Note: when we upload documents, they automatically create a proof.   In this situation, I am consistently asked to ‘Make a Decision’.   This clutters th

I create relaton schemas for campaign orchestration and have a question. What does ‘Enable for segmentation’ means?Data may be used in AEP segmentation? Data may be used in orchestrated campaigns? 

We are currently migrating from Adobe Analytics to Customer Journey Analytics (CJA) and would like to request support in enabling identity stitching for our setup. Our Setup: We operate a B2B lead-generation website. AEP Web SDK is implemented, and ECID is generated for all page views. Email is captured only at the time of lead form submission. We will soon be integrating Marketo and Salesforce data into Adobe Experience Platform using the RTCDP B2B schema, which will also feed into CJA.  Our Objective: Stitch anonymous ECID-based behavior with the email identity once it becomes available via lead form submission. Enable reporting in CJA that shows a complete view of the customer journey — from anonymous engagement to form submission. Avoid increasing profile counts in RTCDP based solely on ECID-based anonymous traffic (we do not want ECID-only visitors to create full profiles). Ensure that profile qualification only happens when a

Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) and Adobe Journey Optimizer (AJO) together provide a powerful ecosystem for delivering personalized customer experiences at scale. While AEM manages content and digital assets, AJO orchestrates customer journeys using real-time data from Adobe Experience Platform (AEP)..

Hello Community! Has anyone successfully used the “Create Record” automation available within Planning and been able to get linked fields to transfer between record types? The only options for creating record between record types is Name, Start Date, and End Date (we use a taxonomy workspace and link picklist there).

It seems that a bug was introduce in version 2.34.2 of the AEP Data Collection Tags AEP Web SDK extension, whereby the extension’s version number is no longer included in the xdm.implementationDetails.version value. Now the value is “__VERSION__+2.34.2”. In previous versions the value was like this “2.31.1+2.34.1”.This data has been helpful in attributing the root cause of observed issues in collected data back to a specific version of the AEP Web SDK extension. How do we go about getting this bug fixed?

We are looking for some help as we currently blocked in our tracking implementation of this Adobe target server side implementation. We can successfully retrieve a4tpayload/tnta from the backend and sending in the first analytics call through global page rules, but it never appears on the first Analytics b/ss call also nothing appears in the Analytics report either

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

Just published a long-form article sharing lessons from 10+ years of AEM implementations,including AEM Cloud migration patterns, service user pitfalls, performance at scale in regulated environments, and where AI is taking AEM next.Would love to hear from others in the communitywho have gone through similar migrations especially in regulated industries.https://medium.com/@merupulaakhilgoud/from-aem-5-6-to-aem-cloud-what-10-years-of-enterprise-cms-taught-me-about-building-for-scale-1c6040b09e1e 

Hi Marketo Community 👋I’m a Marketing Automation Manager looking to either adopt or evolve a better translation and localization process for email, and I’d really love to learn how others are handling this—especially at scale.Our current stateWe start with an English source and translate + localize into seven languages Translation and localization are handled in-house via cross-charge, with localization (rightfully) costing more After translation, my team then builds separate emails in Marketo for each language Most of this work supports nurture programs, so each project can involve many translated email buildsWhere things get difficultNative-language review is non‑negotiable. We strongly believe content must be reviewed by someone fluent in the target language to ensure accuracy, tone, cultural nuance, and brand alignment. That said, finding native speakers is a challenge in itself: It adds cost Reviewers are often outside marketing or Marketo If we rely on internal native speakers

Hi everyone,I’m working on a schema configuration and have run into a question regarding field group inheritance and Profile enablement.The Setup: I have a Custom Field Group containing Field A and Field B. Field A was marked as "Required" at the Global Field Group level (it appears as mandatory in every schema it is added to). In my specific schema, I have designated Field B as the Primary Identity. In most other schemas across our organization, Field A is usually the Primary Identity. The Question: If I enable this schema for Profile and begin ingesting data, will my local configuration (marking Field B as Primary) have any "upstream" impact on the Field Group definition? Specifically, will Field B suddenly become a required field for other schemas using this same Field Group?Also, since Field A is "Required" at the group level but is NOT my primary identity in this specific use case, is there a recommended way to handle this during ingestion if Field A values aren't the focus

We have several product fields (multi-select dropdown) on custom forms used by different groups. One group would like to adjust the fields by adding new choices on them that won’t apply to the other groups. No deletion or renaming of existing choices is needed. These fields have been used on thousands of requests and projects by the group, and I’d like to keep that data intact for them. I know that changing the fields will change them on all the other groups’ forms. I’ve tried making copies of the fields in Preview to see if the copy carries over the original field’s selection, but it didn’t work. Is there a way to copy the existing fields for this group’s forms (requests and projects) so that the copies retain all of the previous entered data while also allowing me to add the new choices they requested?

I am trying to create configuraion to purge workflows which are older than 100 days for AEM as clouds service.Documentation -https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-manager-cloud-service/content/operations/maintenance Above link says to create a node under /conf where as the link below asks you to create node under /apps for maintenance window.Sample configuration - https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/experience-cloud-kcs/kbarticles/ka-25921#environment  I'm trying to determine the correct way to create a maintenance window. I used the sample configuration and it worked, but after reviewing the documentation for second time, I realized that the maintenance window is supposed to be created under /conf. So what is correct place to keep this configuration?