Expand my Community achievements bar.

Deleted linked folder in external source (AEM) is still visible in workfront and return error

Avatar

Level 3

Hello everyone,

I've integrated AEM and Workfront using the improved connector v1.9.11.

when an AEM user deletes a linked folder from AEM, that folder is still visible in Workfront and an error is thrown if the user tries to navigate (obviously because the folder no longer exists)

 

And even if i do a request to the workfront API, the json response has the deleted folder.

 

What is the issue? how i can update the list to have the same status between aem and workfront when folder are removed?

 

Thanks in advance

3 Replies

Avatar

Community Advisor

Do you have these doc folders in WF linked with AEM on a template level and the folder is no longer needed? If so, unlink the folder from the template so it doesn’t continue to appear in new projects using that template. If not in a template and is only in a project, try unlinking the folder in the project docs that you had unlinked its counterpart folder in AEM.

If this helped you, please mark correct to help others : )

Avatar

Level 3

Hi @Madalyn_Destafney 

the folders are created at the project level. We are using the Workfront Enhanced Connector for AEM, which has the ability to automatically create the linked folders when the project meets the configured requirements.
That is, each project has a different folder in AEM to store its documents. There are cases where the user no longer needs them and deletes them from AEM.
in this case, the folder is still visible in the Workfront, but obviously when trying to access it, we see an error in workfront because the folder no longer exists in the external source, in our case AEM

Avatar

Community Advisor

Sorry for the delayed response. I agree it doesn’t seem right that if they’re dynamic folders, they should delete when the folder is deleted on AEM. But I haven’t had the exact experience (we didn’t link folders, just docs), so I recommend reaching out to Support to see if that’s intended integration behavior or a bug.

If this helped you, please mark correct to help others : )