Your achievements

Level 1

0% to

Level 2

Tip /
Sign in

Sign in to Community

to gain points, level up, and earn exciting badges like the new
Bedrock Mission!

Learn more

View all

Sign in to view all badges

Asset should NOT be allowed to publish without mandatory properties

Avatar

Avatar
Boost 5
Level 2
abulqasimkp
Level 2

Likes

5 likes

Total Posts

3 posts

Correct reply

1 solution
Top badges earned
Boost 5
Shape 1
Give Back
Boost 3
Boost 1
View profile

Avatar
Boost 5
Level 2
abulqasimkp
Level 2

Likes

5 likes

Total Posts

3 posts

Correct reply

1 solution
Top badges earned
Boost 5
Shape 1
Give Back
Boost 3
Boost 1
View profile
abulqasimkp
Level 2

14-11-2021

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: AEM Assets metadata schema allows client to configure metadata schema with mandatory properties. Once this schema is applied to folder, then assets inside that that folder is highlighted with banner as REQUIRED METADATA MISSING. Also will NOT be allowed to save metadata without putting mandatory properties. But asset are allowed to publish without mandatory properties. AEM should restrict publishing asset without mandatory property.
Use-case: AEM Assets metadata schema allows client to configure metadata schema with mandatory properties. Once this schema is applied to folder, then assets inside that that folder is highlighted with banner as REQUIRED METADATA MISSING. Also will NOT be allowed to save metadata without putting mandatory properties. But asset are allowed to publish without mandatory properties. AEM should restrict publishing asset without mandatory property.
Current/Experienced Behavior: Asset are allowed to publish without mandatory properties.
Improved/Expected Behavior: As mandatory properties are missing, asset should not be allowed to publish (similar to how metadata save is not allowed without adding mandatory properties).
Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as cloud service (AEMaaCS)
Customer-name/Organization name: Lenovo
Screenshot (if applicable):  
Code package (if applicable):  
1 Comment

Avatar

Avatar
Contributor
Level 4
FreedomMarketin
Level 4

Likes

26 likes

Total Posts

31 posts

Correct reply

22 solutions
Top badges earned
Contributor
Shape 1
Applaud 5
Boost 25
Give Back 25
View profile

Avatar
Contributor
Level 4
FreedomMarketin
Level 4

Likes

26 likes

Total Posts

31 posts

Correct reply

22 solutions
Top badges earned
Contributor
Shape 1
Applaud 5
Boost 25
Give Back 25
View profile
FreedomMarketin
Level 4

29-11-2021

Agreed, this is a better implementation of required metadata fields than the current approach.

 

It is often the case that users will not have all the required metadata field information at various points in the process. The current implementation prevents saving *any* metadata information until all required fields are completed.  Which puts users in a bind of having to not update metadata at all OR update with bad metadata on some required fields in order to make the update for values that are known. As a result, our best practice for implementation is never to use required metadata fields because the product implementation actually encourages less accurate metadata.

 

Our workaround has always been to create a publishing gate that prevents distribution of assets before certain fields are completed as requested in this feature. But this would be better as a product feature than a custom implementation.