Hi @GBPN_France Thanks for your participation in the brand new ideas
section of the community. While we appreciate you raising this idea we
focus on the OOTB AEM core features such as Sites, Assets, ..etc. For
Adaptive Forms you may contact support.
@Shashi_Mulugu For future reference please post questions to the
appropriate section of the community. The "ideas" tab is specific for
raising Request for Feature Enhancements (RFEs).
Hi @Ravi_Pampana This looks like more of something that requires problem
analysis to understand the root cause. I believe at this point it does
not qualify for an idea or feature request. Your participation in the
community is appreciated.
Hi @KBWEB This Idea has already been submitted [1] so you may follow the
same post. Your participation to the community is appreciated. [1]
https://experienceleaguecommunities.adobe.com/t5/adobe-experience-manager-ideas/trashcan-for-aem/idi-p/340256
Hi Vineeth,Currently you are able to add assets to an existing
collection [1]. So can you clarify how its different from adding asset
from another collection ? The end result is to add an asset to an
existing collection. [1]
https://docs.adobe.com/content/help/en/experience-manager-65/assets/managing/managing-collections-touch-ui.html#adding-assets-to-a-collection
It's very exciting to see increasing community member's participation in
the brand new "IDEAS" section of the Experience Manager community. To
better facilitate the interaction and make it more efficient the
following guidance should be followed as a template when submitting a
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE/idea). This will ensure the
required information is captured at the first step making the whole
process more inclusive and effective. The required items in GREEN and
optional items in B...
Hi @Eric_261 I suggest to discuss your points with AMS team by
contacting your TAM and/or CSE. The extent of this request is beyond AEM
and needs a broader understanding and feasibility check. Your
participation to this community is appreciated.
@raj_mandalapu The current versioning mechanism has been used to for
similar purpose as indicated above. I can imagine having a recycle bin
to restore deleted files could conflict with versioning strategy on the
system. As you know the system is instructed to keep specific number of
versions for specific number of days. So you could predict upon
restoring files/pages from a recycle bin how challenging is for the
system to calculate and maintain the same strategy each time files/pages
restore vio...
Hi @Suraj_Kamdi Thanks for submitting this Reqeust for Feature
Enhancement (RFE). There are some aspects of design dialogs that are
available in Design Mode e.g. the design dialog for parsys [1]. So are
you referring to a similar feature ? It may not actually have D&D
functionality but it provide a GUI approach for design. Also it would be
helpful if you can provide a specific use case for this RFE since this
is a broad topic. Thanks [1]
https://docs.adobe.com/content/help/en/experience-manager-...
Hi @varuns69729001 Thanks for submitting the Request for Feature
Enhancements (RFE). To start I would suggest to divide each request in
an individual RFE requests since each request needs to be discussed and
pursued separately. So we can keep this RFE for the 1st item in the
list.Ref: when there is one level of child but for some cases we require
multi-level multi field that does not work fine.Can you clarify how it
is not working as expected when using nested multifield in Content
Fragment ? e....
Hi @Shashi_Mulugu Thanks for submitting the 1st Request for Feature
Enhancement (RFE) for AEM in the brand new community "IDEAS" section.
This is right place to submit such requests. From your explanations I
understand that it is requested to have more granular control in
translation rules over included/excluded assets from translation jobs.
Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. We will look into
this request further and let you know if more information is needed.
It's not clear to me if this is your query or its an OOTB query ? It's
searching "nt:base". The Oak index definition suggest such query to have
an index with the following properties: - compatVersion = 2- async =
"async"- jcr:primaryType = oak:QueryIndexDefinition-
evaluatePathRestrictions = true- type = "lucene"+ indexRules+ nt:base+
properties+ master- name = "cq:master"- propertyIndex = true-
notNullCheckEnabled = true If the existing index does not have the
suggested properties you may add i...
There are some known issue with Move feature so can you install the
latest service pack and try ? I am able to move and rename without any
issues in 6.5.4
Check this document about Style System that can be alternative visual
variations of a component, making the component more flexible.
https://docs.adobe.com/content/help/en/experience-manager-65/authoring/siteandpage/style-system.html
Are you using the latest chrome version i.e. 83.0.4103.61 ? It seems the
latest chrome version causes similar issues. Can you try using a
different browser to verify ? The issue I am referring to is under
investigation via GRANITE-30226
You should be able to overlay the existing component to configure your
style in RTE. The following article help you for
this:https://helpx.adobe.com/experience-manager/using/touchUI_RTE_configure.html
This doc can help you with this
requirement:https://docs.adobe.com/content/help/en/experience-manager-65/administering/operations/workflows-managing.html#configuring-access-to-workflows
If its not announced in technical requirements then its not supported
yet. It does not mean it will not work. It means it has not been yet
tested and not officially supported until its tested and publicly
announced.
You can use a custom rendering condition to overlay the standard action
and impose specific conditions that must be fulfilled before it is
rendered.https://docs.adobe.com/content/help/en/experience-manager-64/developing/extending-aem/customizing-consoles-touch.html
Are you using the latest chrome version i.e. 83.0.4103.61 ? It seems the
latest chrome version causes similar issues (package upload failure).
Can you try using a different browser to verify ? There is a JIRA opened
to further investigate the issue.
