Build better products with our product team
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Add typical .json characters to Environment Configuration Name field. Use-case: See attached screen-shoot. Current/Experienced Behavior: Current behavior does not allow dashes, colons, semi-colons, etc. Improved/Expected Behavior: We would like to be able to use .json identifiers, which contain more then the current list of allowed alpha-numerics. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Chipotle Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
The way Updates are hidden (you can't tell if there are updates without going into the section). In my mind the whole purpose of the tool is to facilitate conversations about issues, but detaching this from the story and hiding the content makes it difficult. When there is an update, could there be a visual indicator until user clicks on update and reads it
Description - A team would like to add Tasks to Programs - Why is this feature important to you -to ensure that program initiatives are prioritized and completed - these Tasks would not align to a project, but would affect the Program. How would you like the feature to work - The team would add Tasks to a program as needed. Current Behaviour - No opportunity to add tasks directly to a program
Description - AEP debugged doesn't show any events, data or anything really usefulWhy is this feature important to you - Well, for starts I'd like to to show me network events, logs and the basics that I could get from Cloud debugger.How would you like the feature to work -Current Behaviour - Showing me nothing at the moment. It connects, let's me sign in and stuff, but it does not populate any data at all in the debugger itself. Adding Adobe Analytics and all relatable products through Adobe Launch. Does it not work with the standard way of adding AA as an extension in Launch?
Description: When trying to access the Adobe Target configuration tab, an error message appears: Something went wrong. We're sorry but something has gone wrong and we are unable to show this section at the moment. Try using a different section or closing and re-opening the debugger window.We've automatically been notified of the error but please reach out if this continues to occur. Why is this feature important to you: I use this feature often to debug profiles and matched activities. I have been receiving this message for approximately 7 days, which have included computer/browser/enxtension restarts How would you like the feature to work: It used to work, where I could enable Target Trace Current Behaviour: Error message appears (as above)
Description - Product request: Add the time of error to the error email. The data exists (visible in Fusion) so this should be a trivial change. This would help us distinguish between late deliveries and new errors. Why is this feature important to you - During Fusion "outages" (eg recently the datastore system failed and scenarios couldn't initiate) Fusion queues a ton of error notifications. In our case the emails kept coming in many hours after the issue was resolved. When the Notifications contain the date of the error occurrence we can better filter "noise": Eg in above example I could filter out notifications for Oct 1, and still see all errors (even is same type) that occur on Oct 3. How would you like the feature to work - Add the time of error to the error email. The data exists (visible in Fusion) so this should be a trivial change. Current Behaviour - For the same error type, error message queued from a week ago is identical to the error occurring today. No way to distinguish
There have been many times when Workfront users will enter comments into a project and forget to include the right people or any people. This has caused so much frustration, delays, etc. that could have been avoided if Workfront had an option to send all comments on a project to the Owner and Sponsor. This can be a setting in the email notification per user, or at the admin level.
Description - The Initiative name column is too narrow it only allows 23 characters. Please allow this column width to be adjusted Why is this feature important to you - In order to prioritize projects we need to be able to read more of the name. How would you like the feature to work - Allow the column width to be adjustable Current Behaviour - Its locked at 23 characters.
Description - Using Target recommendation API, you can search catalog using API. The MAX number of search results returned by API is 500. Why is this feature important to you - Many Organization has millions of offers as part of catalog. Searching only 500 limits on lots of functionality. How would you like the feature to work - This should be increased to a decent limit (like - 10000). The default can be 10 which is as of today. Current Behaviour - You can't get more than 500 entries from the search.
The fact that you cannot embed screenshots in the description or updates is a major flaw. I get that you can attach them as documents in a different tab, but they are difficult to open (you get either a tiny thumbnail that you cannot see or open it in a new window). Especially for bugs it is nice to say, "it looks like this: [X] " and I expected this: [X]" using inline images. We basically post these images and full description in Microsoft Teams because there is no other way.
I would like the typeahead field to be linked to whatever was selected. For instance, if the field was for project, someone types in a project. After that field has a saved entry, I'd like that text of the project name to now be an active link back to that project. It would be a great reference. I wanted to put it in our request queues as a link to a previous project they want us to reference in creating a new project. But with no active link, it doesn't make any sense to use that field.
Description - Deactivated users should not come up when you're tagging someone in a Workfront proof or searching for a user. There are a lot of common names out there and it makes it harder for users to select the correct user when tagging. Why is this feature important to you - Avoid the risk of tagging or searching for a user no longer with the company due to similar names/same first names How would you like the feature to work - Don't show deactivated users except for in the user field with the deactivated filter on Current Behaviour - all active and deactivated users show up when tagging someone or searching for someone.
Give us the ability to create our own type ahead fields that allow users to add options, similar to a tag field in a CMS.
Marketo was recently updated to support setting HTTP headers for landing pages, including setting HSTS. This is great! However, additional standard security headers should be set for Marketo Landing Pages; this is onerous to do and requires proxy work outside of the platform. Would it be possible to add support for the following header items: x-content-type-options referrer-policy x-frame-options content-security-policy permissions-policy Additionally, the following three headers are upcoming and should have future support: cross-origin-embedder-policy cross-origin-opener-policy cross-origin-resource-policy This helps harden security for Marketo landing pages and may be required for infosec reasons.
Issue: Calendars are in their own section and have to be built for any subset of items the user wants to see on them. Need: What I need is a default calendar in each Project that would dynamically show Tasks and Requests on that project. It would let me turn off or toggle one or the other. The calendar would have different views for week/month/quarter/year (or custom timeframe) I could define and filter what is presented on the calendar (ALL including closed, Open, custom)
Description - We try not to edit Scenarios when live, but there are times when we do. And invariably, we replace the module and neglect to update a filter. This causes lots of error spam. It would be good to see the same little number one sees on a module on a filter so we can fix the issue before it becomes a visible error.
When an issue is resolved by a project, this field is easily identifiable when creating an issue report - it's called the "Resolving Object" (resolvingObj / resolvingObjID). However, I can't find the equivalent on a Project report. I have a Project report with many projects which resolve issues and I wish to display the resolvable issue, just like the resolving object is displayed when I add the column on an Issue report. Would you be so kind in showing me how to add this column? P. S. I remember being able to add this column but I no longer find it. I believe I used the fields in the Rejection Issue table (I say this because I have an old Project report that has the column 'rejectionIssue:entryDate' and it used to show the resolvable issue's entry date but doesn't anymore). Were these fields deprecated?
We can see value to using the Group Administrator feature but the roadblock is they have to have full create/delete permissions on users. That's an immediate red flag as we should not have to open up permissions that can allow for someone to accidentally add/remove a user to the system just so they can add/remove a user from a group. They just need the ability to edit a user record to add/remove group access, and specifically just the field for Groups. If I can set a team owner who can add/remove users from a team, why can't group admins manage teams this way without the need for full create/delete permissions for the entire user? It feels like this functionality needs a revist to offer fine tuning on the controls here. I understand some companies might want Group Admins creating users from scratch or deactivating/deleting them as well but you probably have just as many companies that do NOT want to open up that level or permissions. Which means they can't take advantage of this feature to allow other users to be group admins and manage user access to groups. It should be an option to handle it either way.
Description - Currently, there is no way to "lock" a project from activity. This is a feature that would help prevent accidental changes after a project/iteration is completed. We have run into issues where someone accidentally transferred tasks from an old iteration to a new iteration. By Locking the finished iteration, it should not allow those tasks to be transferred. Why is this feature important to you - The goal is to prevent users from accidentally moving old completed iteration tasks to a different iteration How would you like the feature to work - Ability to Lock the Iteration after it is Complete. It can only be unlocked by specified people and NOT everyone in the team. Specified People Include: Iteration Owner, Team Owner, Admins. This lock will lock out any changes to the Iteration Cannot remove a task/issue if it is in an Iteration that is locked (from the iteration or from anywhere in the system (example from a Project or report) Notify the user that your attempt to move tasks was not allowed because one or more of the tasks are in a locked Iteration. Cannot add a task/issue to an Iteration that is locked Custom Form Data can only be changed by specified people above or if one of the specified people unlocked the Iteration. And to correct the bad behavior below – there should at minimum be a dialog pop up that says you are about to move XXX number of tasks to an iteration that include task XX number of Summary tasks and tasks that have not been explicitly selected for the move. Current Behaviour - Projects/Iterations/Tasks can be easily moved without warning.
We would love the ability in a report that if there is a role assigned on tasks, but the person assigned has that role as a secondary job role, to still be able to pull in the name of the person. Currently, you are only able to pull in the name of the person if that person's Primary Job Role is equivalent to the role assigned on the task. We have a lot of instances where a person will jump in to help with work when extra help is needed. It's not their primary function, but they assist as needed.
When a user clicks on the New Task button on the MyWork page, this new task does not need to be associated with a Project, and it can accept hours. The problem is that we transfer all of our time data in Workfront to our financial system, and all of the time data needs to be associated with a Project because the Project contains all the metadata that we need. So, we need the ability to prevent users from creating their own tasks that are not associated with any project, so that users don't accidentally log time on these orphan tasks.
The task to review a proof should be integrated with the Proof itself - ability to have a proof in a Workfront project that is the same as reviewing the proof. Provide a decision on the proof, marks the task complete and continues with the Workfront workflow. Some of our team is waiting for a ProofHQ e-mail when all decisions are made, but combining the Proof, the act of reviewing that proof, and a task within Workfront will help streamline the workflow.
Our internal InfoSec team wants to access the Workfront Audit Logs through Workfront Support API. We understand the Workfront support API’s for audit logs are not available currently, hence we are putting this request (new feature request) to Workfront for developing the Audit Log API’s so that our SIEM solution can pull the audit logs
Currently, animated GIFs can only be proofed separately. I want Workfront to remove this restriction and allow animated GIFs to be combined together as well as be combined with static files and still retain their interactive animation ability. Email campaigns often have multiple GIFs and static elements so this would help us keep all assets together in the review and approval cycle. Anyone else dislike this restriction?
Whether in custom fields or system fields, would love to have the capacity to enable whether user can choose a date later than today's date. Entered on behalf of Lindsay Wescott.
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.
