Adobe Workfront

Has anyone figured out a way to exclude holidays in calculated fields in an efficient way?Our use case is we have 8 calculated fields and need the ability to not pull in the business holidays. Our back up solution is to create another set of fields where a user can do manual override dates but this adds additional work, additional fields we need pull into reports and adds more clutter to the form so wanted to gut check if there were any workarounds.Thank you!

Thanks to everyone who joined today’s workshop on Mastering Business Rules and Validation Logic in Adobe Workfront! The session was led by Adobe Workfront’s Tina Craig, Principal Business Consultant, Content Supply Chain, who shared several examples and best practices for using these new features to help with governance (and reduce the redundant reminders from admins)! Workshop Summary:Validation logic prevents form submission when criteria are met; business rules prevent object creation, deletion, and editing across system. Validation logic uses if-then statements on custom form fields; business rules are configured in the Setup area with broader scope (only available to customers on the Workflow Ultimate package). Practical examples like special character restrictions, character limits, date constraints, SLA enforcement, and multi-option selections were demo’ed.  Remember! Always test in Sandbox before production deployment to prevent workflow disruption. If you weren’t able to join

Hello community - I am new to Fusion and looking to use Fusion to create a report (or notification if report isn’t an option) that is a list of a users current proofs they are a “reviewer” only on. I don’t see any templates remotely close to this so starting here to see if anyone has done something similar or has any recommendations to get this to work.  So far looking to do the following: watch event for new proof Read the record of the proof to pull role filter by the role “reviewer”  Create report (or notification) What am I missing? 

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

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).

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

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?

Currently, setting the default filters and groups in a Layout Template > “Home” > “Widget Settings”, changes the default filter for all areas of Workfront. IE if a user is on a layout template where the default grouping for the “My Tasks” widget is set to “Project”, all areas of Workfront where the user views tasks will be grouped by project. This is simply a poor UI choice - these settings should either only affect the home widgets, or they should be moved to a section of the UI that indicates they affect the entire system.

We are wanting to bring our proofreading process into Workfront, but are struggling to find the easiest way to do so.Our proofreaders don’t work on specific work as it’s based on what’s coming in and how busy each of them are. Our current way is outside of Workfront, where they pick up the PDF and proofread that file to give back to the team to make edits. We would like to include them in the proofing process that happens within Workfront currently. Since there isn’t a way to pull a report to show what a person has to review (as we don’t need them to approve the proof), we are finding that the only way to add them into the Workfront Proofing process is to add both proofreaders as reviewers & approvers. The owner of the proof would then remove the proofreader who doesn’t make a decision on the proof since the other one did the work. We can use the reports that we have built for them to see what work they have and show them how they can see if the other one is in the proof or not.Doe

This morning, I did a proof of concept of "Targeted Auditing" and would like to share it with the Community. I thought of the idea years ago but never made time for until my unsatisfying response to this thread twigged my memory. As below, my example records the changes to a particular "Target" custom text parameter in its "Target History" custom calculated parameter counter part...and to my delight, actually works! The formula turned out to be why-didn't-I-try-this-sooner? simple: LEFT(IF(LEFT(Target History,LEN(IF(ISBLANK({Target}),"-",{Target})))={Target},Target History,CONCAT(IF(ISBLANK({Target}),"-",{Target})," (",$$NOW,") | ",{Target History})),2000) And does the following: - limits the Target History to the most recent 2000 characters (staying within the Workfront database limit)- checks if the current Target value (treating it as "-" if it is blank) matches the front of the Target History value- if they match, leaves the Target History "as is"- if they don't match, replaces the

I have an existing WF user who has been using the program for years and has never had an issue with logging in before. Today however when she goes to log in she gets the following error message"You don't have access to the linked application for that organization an have been redirected to the Experience Cloud home page" I had her close wf and clear her cashe and now when she tries to log back in she is getting another error message"This username may be incorrect. Make sure you typed it correctly. Otherwise, contact your admin"I checked and her username is correct. Has anyone had this happen to them before and how did you fix it? Attached screenshots of the error messages."

As the Workfront Second Quarter Release is scheduled for next week (April 16 - Quarterly Release, April 15 - Monthly/Fast Release), this webinar highlighted a handful of enhancements coming to Advanced Enterprise Operations, Unified Approvals (the future of proofing in Workfront), Reporting, Fusion, and Workfront Planning. There are several demos in the on-demand recording, so it’s a bit longer than usual - plan for 75 minutes unless you watch on 2x speed.  If you weren't able to attend - no worries! The links to the slide deck, recording, and Q&A are listed below. Be sure to review the release notes on Experience League, as not all feature enhancements were covered in the webinar today!  Webinar Recording  Slide Deck PDF - note that the videos cannot be replayed in the slide deck PDF, so I’ve included links to those below  All videos from the section, Advanced Enterprise Operations Enhancements, can be found here - Financial Management (slide 18), Enhanced Layout Templates (sl