Adobe Workfront

Can a validation rule be setup that only allows users from a particular group to access a form field?  I’m trying something along these lines but I can’t get the syntax correct.IF($$USER.groupIDs="69fcf9d70002183a0944fbb90b78a5ab", "Only members of the LP Approval group can edit this field.")Any help would be appreciated.ThanksFrank

Hey all, I’m trying to build a Fusion automation to connect appropriate projects to records in Workfront Planning but the Planning Update Record module isn’t an append, it replaces any values currently in the field. What I’m trying to do is add a new project to the connected project field of a given record, while retaining the existing connected projects.Whether this was clean or not, my idea of a workaround was to re-map all of the existing connected projects plus the new one, so I’m using the Planning Get a Record module to pull in the pertinent information on the specific record type I need to connect the project to. This is outputting a “Project” array that contains as many collections as there are currently connected projects, with each collection containing the External ID.Then in a Planning Update Record module, I’m mapping the Project array external ID to the Project (Connection) field by using the array index number, plus the new project’s external ID as seen below.  This func

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

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

We have been attempting to connect Workfront and Campaign Classic V8 with Fusion and we established the connection.    The issue we seem to be having when using Adobe Campaign Classic Read a Record module, is that when selecting any resource, we get this error message.   I have been working with the Campaign Classic admin to see if we can troubleshoot the access limitations and just been hitting a roadblock at this time.     Does anyone have any experience with this and know how to correct this?   This appears to be something on the Campaign Classic side that is limiting access and I am not familiar with the application and hoping I could help provide the admin over there some possible solution to review.   Thanks!  

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

If you just got back from Adobe Summit 2026 (or wished you had), this is the event you don't want to miss. The Workfront WUG – Southern California is hosting a virtual after party on May 12, 2026 — and we're skipping the polished recaps in favor of the real conversation.What announcements will actually change how your team works? What's worth bringing back to your org — and what's just hype? Our expert panelists are ready to give you their unfiltered takes on Workfront, content supply chain innovation, and AI. No fluff. Just clarity, candor, and a little healthy debate.🗓️ May 12, 2026 | VirtualAll chapters, members, and guests welcomeRegister here: https://workfront-augs.adobe.com/events/details/adobe-workfront-wug-southern-california-presents-spill-the-tea-adobe-summit-2026-after-party/Mega-WUGs are special virtual events where all Workfront User Group (WUG) chapters are invited. Not familiar with WUG?  Learn more here.

Hi all—looking for some ideas/best practices here!I’m exploring how to automate task completions in Workfront based on proof decisions. From what I understand, this requires the document to live at the task level. If that’s the case, I’m curious how others are handling version control across multiple rounds of edits.Do you typically reuse the same task for each round, or create new tasks for each version? Trying to avoid things getting messy while still enabling automation.Example of what I’m trying to achieve:Design R1 – Designer uploads file to the task and marks complete Creative Review R1 – Proof is created and routed for approval Approved → completes Creative Review and moves to execution Changes Required → completes Creative Review and moves to Design R2 → Creative Review R2 This cycle would repeat until final approval.Would love to hear how others are handling this—especially if you’ve found a clean way to manage versions + automation together. Thanks in advance! 

I’m curious who is using Priorities and whether it’s working well for your team. I’ve been playing around with it for a while and really like the UI and overall functionality, but it still feels a bit too “clicky” for me to comfortably roll out to our teams.For example, our Creative team lives in their assigned tasks and frequently jumps into the project custom form to view requirements/details. In Priorities, it seems like they need to click into the project name and then click “Go to details” from the side panel to get there. Am I missing an easier way to navigate this?Would love to hear how others are using Priorities in similar workflows/scenarios.

We have Workfront contributors that will view a monthly report that contains a proof link, where they can view a document proof. For these users, all User notification settings set to off. However, when they click to view the Document Proof, Workfront is adding them as a “Reviewer” to the Document Proof and automatically subscribing them to receive Daily Summaries for that project. We tested resolution by keeping them as Reviewer with Proof notification settings disable. However, next month when they view the report again, it auto-defaults to start sending Daily Summaries. This is an issue, as these particular users cannot get bogged down with the details within those daily summaries for each project, and we need to control this scenario to protect their inbox.Has anyone else experienced this and/or found a resolution? I saw a past post in Experience League, but it was marked as “resolved” due to inactivity on comments, but with no resolution.

Hello, I know i can bring this in a task report, but Is there anyway I can bring in lastnote: note text in a note report?

Fusion currently supports Google forms only. MS Forms would be a great addition.

Is it possible using custom form validation to only allow a particular field to be edited by only 2 users?I tried it on 1 user but it isn’t a valid expression. IF($USER!="609974980022b44f8ff9fc5e51b8516f", "You are not authorized to edit this field.") or maybeIF {$$USER}.{emailAddr} = "john.Doe@mscdirect.com", true)Any help is appreciated.  

Why is this feature important to you -My PMO manages projects for a Creative Studio Resource. At any given time there are more than 100 projects open. When we are looking at that teams Workload Balancer we can't tell easily which projects are running ahead or behind as there is no way to see the Priority. The Priority is a field in the Overview section on a Project under Basic Information that is an out of the box field. Today we utilize Flexible and Firm Deadline to know if the Creative Studio has more time or not for their task. They appear in green (Flexible) and red (Firm Deadline). How would you like the feature to work -If Priority was added as one of the Color Theme, then it would color code the projects on the Workload Balancer - green (Flexible) and red (Firm Deadline). Benefits - Team members can see which projects are most critical (green and red), fostering alignment and urgency. Color-coded priorities help visualize workload distribution and plan for capacity more effectiv

Hi everyone - I’m building a task report for my team. Most of the fields I am referencing are related to the project and task however there are a few fields I need to reference from the converted request. I haven’t been able to figure out how to pull in the converted request reference number. The best I can do is the request name. I tried to see if I could pull it in by tweaking text mode but I’m still learning and don’t really know what I’m doing.  Any assitance or guidance is appreciated. 

I built a document report that includes the Current Version » Proof Decision field.  I added a filter to include only those documents where this decision field is not blank.In addition to the expected decision values--approved, approved with changes, changes required, pending--I’m also seeing a “-” value:  Does anyone know what exactly this “-” value reflects?  I don’t work a lot with proofs themselves (I’m just reporting on them), so I’m not sure what conditions might produce this value.The API Explorer just lists the field as a non-groupable string, but it doesn’t specify possible values.Thanks.

Description - Would like to be able to have a portal set up where vendors could upload assets into projects without giving them any access to Workfront.Why is this feature important to you - This would allow vendor partners the ability to supply assets without needing to be a native user of Workfront. This would also help with internal security to intake assets that are needed but not granting accounts to external partners. This would eliminate manual uploads from internal employees after receiving the assets from the vendors via email, vendor tools, etc.How would you like the feature to work - Potentially leverage existing request area but allow them to be external facing and password protected to allow vendors to submit assets and have them map to the appropriate projects without using Fusion. Current Behavior: This does not exist. Currently, trying to leverage SharePoint and OneDrive integrations but there have been issues in the past with vendor partners not being able to these too

We are exploring ways on how we can receive files from vendors without having them in Workfront as a user.  Our use case is that we need to be able to receive upload files for projects but we do not want to have our vendor in the system as a user for security purposes. We are thinking of using the Sharepoint Integration and have the vendor upload through there and then connect to the projects as one possible solution but there have been issues with using SharePoint in the past with vendors. We are exploring Planning and are wondering if there could be a way to intake assets through a public form and then have an automation direct documents to the appropriate projects. Essentially using this form like a portal for vendors. Curious if anyone has done this before? Also, open to any ideas and recommendations for other solutions on how others are working to receive assets from vendors without giving Workfront access. Thank you!

If i delete a folder in Fusion with contents, doe everything get deleted, or doed the content get placed in uncategorized?

Hi folks!!What I want to do is have the total hours in a timesheet grouped up by a Team.Then have an average of that amount by the number of people in that team. So that it spits out something like, Team a 42 hrs, Team B 47 hours. Etc etc.I was trying to group the hours by home team, but then the average was calculating the average of the individual hours entered, so it was showing 2.66 and such as each individual input of hours was around 1-4 at a time.It may be something that it cant do as a native report. I got quite far in getting it to add up all the total hours in a timesheet for a team, but it cant average by the amount of users in the team, (at least it wasn’t a standard option).Any help as always appreciated!