Build better products with our product team
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: When doing a quick publish in AEM 6.5.21 of a page that refers to a template that contains policies for components, the publish action fails (without any error message) when there is an issue when the cq:lastReplicated property is missing on a policy, and the cq:lastReplicationAction is set to Activate.Upon inspection of the logs, it seems like there is a NPE in the ActivationReferenceSearchBuilder.When manually replicating the default policy, the issue resolves and the replication works, as the reference search no longer errors with a NPE. I would expect either an error message, replication to skip the reference, or some more Null safety checks in the reference search service. Use-case: Users cannot Quick Publish content that has issues with related content missing cq:lastReplicated property. Current/Experienced Behavior: It's very difficult for developers to debug this as we only have an internal NPE without any reference to what is the error. The ActivationReferenceSearchBuilder could point to related content, content fragments, experience fragments, but in this case there is an issue with a linked component policy on the template. Improved/Expected Behavior: At least: an error message in the user-facing quick publish dialog. Currently the behavior is a red Warning icon without any text. Secondary: a more relevant error message: instead of a run-time NPE, a dedicated exception or a warning/debug log would be nice. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM6.5.23 Customer-name/Organization name: Nationale Loterij Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
The tokens for interesting moments are a fantastic tool for sharing marketing engagement data at scale. With more and more MarTech integrating with Marketo via custom activities, it would be very helpful if when triggers are created for scoring these activities (such as Vidyard video views), that the trigger listening for the custom activity can enable the custom activity data to be used as tokens in your smart campaign. For example. Trigger: Watches Vidyard Video -- Percent viewed is 0.75 Flow: Change Score - Behavior -- {{my.B - Video View}} Interesting Moment: Milestone -- Watched video {{trigger.Player Name}}, Percent Watched: 75%, Video Length: {{trigger.Video Length}} seconds. Where the attributes "Player Name" and "Video Length" are attributes of the custom activity: Vidyard Video View which is listened to in the trigger.
Description - Workfront should provide the ability to develop reports on Boards to provide details on current usage.Why is this feature important to you - We do not have any visibility into Boards users have created (i.e., adoption) How would you like the feature to work - Workfront provide a Board object that would detail Entry Date, Last Updated By, Last Viewed By / Date, Columns, Column Detail (e.g., Attributes, Column Name, Dynamic, etc.), etc.Current Behaviour - Workfront does not provide the ability to report on Boards
Description - Need the same reporting capabilities with boards (all types of boards) as we do with all other areas on Workfront and for Admins to be able to see a list of all boards without the need to share the board with the Admin. Because of the lack of these features, we have instructed our users not to use boards. Why is this feature important to you - Without being able to report on boards or even find a list of all boards, it limits the usefulness of this feature. It makes it impossible for Admin to monitor the use of these, keep the system clean, and to tell the story of our work to leadership. There will be a missing portion of the bigger picture without including board information in reports. In fact, I'm extremely surprised reporting wasn't one of the first things created before pushing boards to production. How would you like the feature to work - Just like reporting for all the other areas within the tool that is available today. Also, the Admins should be able to see all boards like the can with EVERYTHING else in the tool. Current Behavior - No way to find out what boards are created, if the users are doing boards correctly, and what work has been done using boards instead of the typical method. @rudyha1 @suzyf @annapu @hollyse @rexxma
@tushargu@adobe.com @karmakar@adobe.com @carltonr@adobe.com Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Publish assets to the preview server Use-case: The requirement is to build an EDAM where all the assets reside. A key requirement for image management is the ability to expose an image for internal preview by other users/systems, without exposing the image publicly. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, there is no way to publish assets to the preview server for Assets customer. Improved/Expected Behavior: We would expect there to be an OOTB way to directly publish assets to the preview server. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Adobe Experience Manager as a Cloud Service Customer-name/Organization name: Starbucks Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - A way to view color separations in a proof instead of having to download the proof to view. This adds in one more unnecessary step for when it's important to check the colors. Why is this feature important to you - It's important to view the color separations in proofs when design teams are reviewing. How would you like the feature to work - Add in a tool to be able to view the color separations - like how it can be done in Acrobat.Current Behavior - We are not able to view color separations when reviewing a proof in Workfront.
After applying the new SFDC OAuth scope app permission, the sync worked perfectly with just two permission settings from SFDC. The current Marketo documentation, which recommends granting permission to all options, needs to be updated. Manage user data via APIs (Api)Perform requests at any time (refresh_token, offline_access)Thank you, Vik
Description - We have Adobe Target on +30 websites, when selecting Analytics as a reporting source, the Report Suite's are listed in a random order. If they were listed alphabetically it would save time and reduce frustration. Why is this feature important to you - Would save time hunting for the correct report suite How would you like the feature to work - List report suites alphabetically Current Behavior - Report suites are listed in a seemingly random order
I love that the Workload Balancer is now available in user profile, it’s super helpful for visibility. But right now, it’s read-only. It would be a big win if direct managers could actually edit allocations directly from this page. In our case, managers have edit access to the projects/tasks their reportees are assigned.Here’s why I think this would help:Easier to spot imbalances and fix them immediately while reviewing someone’s profile.Saves managers a lot of clicks and time.Keeps the experience consistent with the full Workload Balancer.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Allow Bulk edit against a search result set maintaining selected schema Use-case: I filter for specific files, and I wish to batch edit fields in the result set of that search. Presently, If the result set of assets are located in different folders, the schema displayed is the OOTB basic schema, not the custom one we use. I'd like to do a search for assets that contain specific metadata, then bulk-update the result set of assets. That result set is spread across multiple (hundreds) of folders. I can't do an export csv function against assets in multiple folders as that function is only available against a single folder and its subfolders. Current/Experienced Behavior: What I do now, is select the top most folder, then export csv (that contains all files in and under that top folder including subfolders, then pull it all into a spreadsheet to parse for the files I need to modify, make the modifications in the spreadsheet, then upload as a metadata update. The flexibility of doing a metadata export against a search result would be extremely useful. Improved/Expected Behavior: Time, accuracy, consistency Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS Customer-name/Organization name: Nordstrom / PMO Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: AEM as a cloud service when we are editing the through content tree its getting closed each time. collapsing content tree increases the editing time dramatically and unnecessarily without any recognizable advantage.Acknowledged by Adobe team, and also opened internal ticket for it. Hence we also request to provide and update/solution of this issue:-- SITES-13460: Automatically expand component nodes/keep tree state in content tree https://jira.corp.adobe.com/browse/SITES-13460 Use-case: It will reduce edit time for editors dramatically if the content tree does't get closed after edit. Current/Experienced Behavior: Every time after edit through content tree, whole content tree getting closed. Improved/Expected Behavior: Content tree should not get closed fter edit. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): 2025.7.21570.20250715T080514Z Customer-name/Organization name: BVB Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Based on the customer’s internal IT policy, it is required to restrict access to Content Hub endpoints using an IP allow list, similar to the current IP-based access control available for AEM Author (DAM). Without this capability, there is a significant risk that the customer will be unable to adopt Content Hub in their production environment due to internal security compliance requirements. Use-case: The customer utilizes AEM Assets and Content Hub to share content with both internal teams and external agency users. For security and compliance reasons, access to internal content must be restricted to pre-approved IP addresses. While AEM Author supports IP allow list configurations, Content Hub delivery endpoints are currently publicly accessible and do not support the same level of access control. The customer requires the ability to limit access to Content Hub by IP to align with internal security policies. Current/Experienced Behavior: Content Hub delivery endpoints (e.g., *-delivery) are publicly accessible by default. There is no configuration available to apply IP allow list restrictions specifically for Content Hub. IP restrictions set on AEM Author do not apply to Content Hub endpoints. Improved/Expected Behavior: Content Hub should support IP allow list functionality, allowing administrators to define which IP ranges are permitted to access delivery endpoints. If a user attempts to access Content Hub from a non-approved IP, the system should block access and return a 403 error. Ideally, this feature would also allow for different IP configurations for internal users and external partners. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Service Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Please make "In Box" button more visible - case1. when click download button - case2. when find assets that I downloaded Use-case: During user interviews several inverviewees complained he/she couldn't find In Box button when he/she wanted to find downloaded asset Current/Experienced Behavior: - case1. When click download button, it's difficult to find the In Box button (it's too small and on the bottom of the screen) - case2. When find assets that I downloaded, it's impossible to find In Box button at first. Because In box botton is found after I click the bell icon, so before I click this bell icon I can't find in box button. And, even thougn, I click the bell icon, it's still difficult to find the In Box button (refer to the 2nd attachement image) Improved/Expected Behavior: - case1. Make In Box button bigger - case2. Make In Box botton out from bell icon pop-up page. I'd like to see this in box button directly from the page (not from the bell icon pop-up page) Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Service Customer-name/Organization name: LG Electronics Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Have an ability to add a suffix or prefix for the title tag for all the pages within EDS Sites Use-case: We wanted to add " | CVS Group " for all the title tags automatically within HTML. However, it seems like we do not have access to the script/code that generates the title tags. Current/Experienced Behavior: You need to add the prefix or suffix manually for all the pages which consumes a lot of time.Especially if the suffix changes and you have a lot of pages. Improved/Expected Behavior: There will be an ability to add a prefix/suffix for all the pages within a site all at once or add it within the title tag directly. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): EDS, AEM Cloud as a Service Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: New Content Fragment Editor does not honor JCR locking Use-case: In the new Content Fragment editor, JCR locks applied to CF nodes (jcr:lockOwner, jcr:lockIsDeep) are ignored. This allows other users to open, edit, and save CFs even when another user has locked the CF — breaking workflow integrity and increasing risk of data loss. Current/Experienced Behavior: Lock applied on CF node via workflow or API is respected in the old editor (UI prevents edits). In the new editor, the same CF is still editable by all users. No lock icon or warning shown to other users. Improved/Expected Behavior: The new CF editor must respect JCR-level locks like the classic editor. CFs should: Display a lock indicator with username. Prevent edits and saves by users other than the lock owner. Show a warning like “This CF is locked by [user]” Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Lock CF via workflow step or Node.lock() API. Open CF in classic editor → Editing is blocked (✅). Open same CF in new editor → Editing allowed (❌). Customer-name/Organization name: JNJ Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: AEM sites Rollout and publication issue Use-case: When a editor rollout and publishes a master page, the publication process start publishing the live copies in random order and fails when it encounters any market page that is locked to a user. This results in inconsistencies leaving the page changes published to few random markets. Ideally this should have completely stopped or skip the locked page, deploy to rest and notify about skipped page. Current/Experienced Behavior: The rollout/publication does not follow a predictable sequence and succeed for markets until it encounters locked pages then silently fails making it difficult to track progress There is no summary or report indicating which locales were successfully published and which were skipped. This results in inconsistent rollout and makes it hard to identify which pages need manual intervention Improved Before initiating rollout publication, the system should check for any live copy pages that are currently locked by users If any locked pages are detected, halt the entire replication process. Display a clear error message indicating which pages are locked and by whom. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM version - 6.5AEM service pack - 6.5.22 Customer-name/Organization name: British Airways(BA) Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Request to add an option to set a password when generating a Share Link in Content Hub, similar to the existing functionality in LG DAM (AEM Asset) environment. This will enhance security and prevent unauthorized access to brand assets. Use-case: When users generate a Share Link in Content Hub, the link is currently public and can be accessed by anyone with the URL. Adding a password requirement would allow secure distribution of brand assets, ensuring only intended recipients can access the files. Current/Experienced Behavior: Share Links generated in Content Hub are public by default and have no password protection, making them accessible to anyone who obtains the link—intentionally or unintentionally. Improved/Expected Behavior: Provide an optional password protection feature when creating a Share Link. Recipients would be required to enter the password before accessing shared files, similar to the current LG DAM environment. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Content Hub Customer-name/Organization name: LG Electronics Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Request for enhanced Share Link features in Content Hub to improve security, tracking, and management capabilities for enterprise use. Use-case: Enterprise users, such as brand managers or asset owners, need to securely share assets with internal and external stakeholders while maintaining control and visibility. This includes tracking link usage, invalidating links when needed, and enforcing authentication for recipients. Current/Experienced Behavior: There is no built-in feature to: Track who accessed or downloaded the shared assets (IP, download count). View or manage all Share Links created by the user. Invalidate an existing Share Link. Require authentication/OTP for specific recipients. Improved/Expected Behavior: Usage Tracking via Dashboard – Ability to see who accessed a specific Share Link, IP address, and download count. Share Link Management – Ability for the creator to view all their Share Links and manually invalidate them. Enhanced Access Control – Ability to require OTP authentication for email addresses registered to receive the Share Link. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Asset Cloud - Content Hub Customer-name/Organization name: LG Electronics Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Use-case: We have built a taxonomy in our AEM DAM based on custom fields for search, filtering and reporting. We are using a namespace to bucket all of these tags as a top level bucket. Under that we have built out the tag structure for the rest of our taxonomy. The first level of those tags is a category which pairs up to a custom field used for search. These tags are technically "buckets" as well. We would like to set these up as namespaces as well but have them be children of the overarching namespace for our organization? So the structure would look like this:organization-namespace:category:tag-level-1/tag-level-2 Current/Experienced Behavior: We have a namespace to bucket all of our custom tags as a top level bucket. Under that we have built out the tag structure for the rest of our taxonomy. However, the first level of those tags is a category which pairs up to a custom field used for search. Improved/Expected Behavior: We would like to set these up the second level "buckets" as namespaces as well but have them be children of the overarching namespace for our organization? It'll be so much cleaner if we can have all of our tags in one place at the top instead of spread out among 20 or 30 separate namespaces at the root level. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud most recent version Customer-name/Organization name: Enterprise Mobility Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Sonar ruleset significantly influence BMW's development workflows. To ensure smooth integration and minimal disruption, it is essential that any changes to these rules—including minor adjustments—are communicated in advance. Developer teams require early access to updated rule definitions so they can validate their code against them before the changes are enforced in Cloud Manager pipelines. Use-case: BMW experienced a situation where a previously successful pipeline began failing overnight due to newly detected Sonar vulnerabilities, despite being based on the same commit. This indicates that the Sonar ruleset had changed unexpectedly from one day to the next. Given BMW’s multi-project setup—comprising around 10 interdependent projects managed by different development teams—each project is built through its own pipeline. As a result, a Sonar scan failure in any one pipeline can have a significant ripple effect across the entire development landscape. Current/Experienced Behavior: A Sonar scan failure in any one pipeline can have a significant ripple effect across the entire development landscape. Improved/Expected Behavior: To ensure smooth integration and minimal disruption, it is essential that any changes to these rules—including minor adjustments—are communicated in advance. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEMaaCS Customer-name/Organization name: BMW AG Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: I would like to see more of a separation in how assets and folders are managed in AEM. They are both managed the same way in 2 separate spaces, the assets pane and teh content tree. I would like to see the content tree be the space for managing folders and the assets pane be the space to manage assets. Use-case: Admin users managing assets are creating a folder structure with multiple nested folders to keep things organized. In this use case we'll use brands and lines of business. We have assets that are are for a specific brand Current/Experienced Behavior: Admin users managing assets are creating a folder structure with multiple nested folders to keep things organized. There are folder based profiles added to those folders including tags that are applied to any assets added to those. We also created a workflow that will copy tags down from parent to child so those tags aren't overridden by subfolder tagging. In this use case we'll use brands and lines of business. We have assets that are are for a specific brand. They are placed in the folder for that brand and the metadata from the folder based profile is applied. There are multiple lines of business that fall under that brand and there is a folder for each one of those in there as well with a folder based profile added and specific tags for those. Assets are added to those and the tags are automatically applied. This workflow is working fine, however, it leaves us with folders living among a sea of assets. When navigating the DAM via folder structure it becomes very difficult to sift through when there are hundreds (sometimes thousands) of assets surrounding the folders. If I have to update permissions or profiles for specific folders its either confusing (scrolling) or clunky (filtering on folders) to find the folder. Improved/Expected Behavior: I would like to be able to manage all of my folders in the content tree space. Create folders, select and get info, add folder based metadata, etc. And I'd like to be able to manage my assets in the asset pane.Create assets, select and get info, add asset based metadata, etc. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): We are on the most current Assets as a Cloud Service environment. Customer-name/Organization name: Enterprise Mobility Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Add option to sort by page navigation sorting for path/link chooser components. additionally to sort by alphabet.Page structure should follow the site's navigation hierarchy consistently — both in the Sites panel and when selecting internal links within components. The current alphabetical sorting in link dialogs should be replaced with the same hierarchical order used for page editing.Acceptance CriteriaPage structure follows navigation hierarchy across all AEM interfacesApplies to all linkable components (e.g., teaser, button)Same page order as in the Sites panel Use-case: Selecting a path to a Page Current/Experienced Behavior: pathlist is sorted by alphabet Improved/Expected Behavior: sorting can be selected. sorting by sitestructure, maybee sorting by any other criteria Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM cloud Customer-name/Organization name: Sanitas Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: When working in smaller or half-screen viewports in AEM, key page actions such as Delete and Move become hidden within the “more actions” (three dots) menu, often requiring scrolling to the very bottom to locate them. Maybee show only Icons and remove the text. Save some space. Show the text with hover effect. Use-case: ContentManager want to work fast Current/Experienced Behavior: Button is hidden Improved/Expected Behavior: Button should be visible Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM cloud Customer-name/Organization name: Sanitas Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Currently, unpublishing a page requires using Manage Publication, which is useful for scheduling but slow for immediate removals. Adding a Quick Unpublish button, similar to Quick Publish, would allow fast unpublishing while keeping Manage Publication for advanced options. Use-case: ContentManagers want to work fast. Current/Experienced Behavior: Unpublish a page needs multiple navigation steps Improved/Expected Behavior: Unpublish should be faster by having a button for it in reach. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM cloud Customer-name/Organization name: Sanitas Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: The inability to tag a group (e.g. “user group”) in the new CF editor comments appears to be a known limitation based on the current design of the tagging functionality. Use-case: Our business uses the comments feature to review and approve. we have use case where we have a lot of user working at the same time. Current/Experienced Behavior: We can tag a user, or user's not a group Improved/Expected Behavior: we need ability to tag a IMS group or AEM group Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Cloud New Editor Customer-name/Organization name: JNJ Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
