Build better products with our product team
It would great as a future functionality to have screen shotting available
Hi Adobe Team, It would be great to have the ability to manually set the cookieDomain in WebSDK (noting that there was previous functionality in Adobe Analytics that allowed for this). We have noticed that in our implementation in some environments the AMCV and kndctr cookies are being placed on the incorrect domain. Adobe Engineering Support has explained that it is because the Web SDK does a guess and check approach that finds the shortest set of subdomains that will accept cookies (based on the publicsuffix list). If a domain is on the list, you cannot write cookies for any of it's sub-domains as the cookies will be incorrectly placed on the main domain, rather than the sub-domain. This is problematic if you require separate cookies to be placed on each separate sub-domain. Currently there appears to be no way to manually set the cookieDomain, as mentioned in the following documentation:"The Web SDK can determine the correct cookie storage domain without this variable". https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/analytics/implementation/vars/config-vars/cookiedomain It would be great if this feature was re-enabled for Web SDK to rectify these issues. Thank you.
Description - there's no way to reorder favoritesWhy is this feature important to you - project importance changes periodically. if i need to reorder, i have to remove from favorites and then resave in the correct order. this is extremely inconvenient.How would you like the feature to work - add a drag and drop featureCurrent Behaviour - you can only remove and add items from/to the favorites list. no drag and drop feature.
Description - Would love to see Workfront develop logic that allows users to see only the options that are applicable for them within a field, without having to create multiple fields. An example - I have two values that I want project owners to populate. One is Business Group and the other is Product. Each Business Group has its own products. In current state, there are two options. One is to have one Product field that lists all of the products for all of the business groups. The second is to create multiple fields - one Business Group field and then multiple Product fields (one for each business group). In the first option, project owners might have to scroll through a long list to see the one that they need, and if products are similar between business units, there could be confusion about which one to choose. There's nothing stopping them from choosing a product that doesn't match the business group. In the second option, you're maintaining extra fields even though all of them are for Product. This results in more fields that need to be mapped in integrations, and a busier view of excess fields in other tools (for example, AEM). In addition, having numerous fields for the same thing makes analysis and reporting more complicated than it needs to be.
Description - It would be great if we can have a similar functionality that is available in Workfront where we can promote environments, for example if we want to test scenarios in the demo env and then move those scenarios to production teamWhy is this feature important to you - It would shorten the development time, allowing us to focus on important implementation topics and not migrationHow would you like the feature to work - Button available in teams not marked as production from which we can push scenarios/folders while defining connection from the production team that should be used for depending modulesCurrent Behaviour - Feature not available
Description - When setting up a request queue with different queue topics, it would be really helpful to limit who can see each queue topic. Why is this feature important to you - This would allow users to only see topics that apply to them while minimizing the number of queue projects in the system. How would you like the feature to work - Allow for the "Queue Settings" to be applied differently across each queue topic. Each "Queue Topic" would have its own settings with a checkbox to inherit the projects settings or to customize the queue topic's settings. Also allow for sharing within each queue topic so we could provide proper visibility into each topic. Current Behaviour - For every topic that needs different visibility, a whole new request queue needs built which causes a lot of clutter in the initial request screen.
The older version of the API, 1.4, allowed us to download a JSON of the processing rules in a suite. Since these are instrumental in transforming data into eVars, Props, and Events, they are an essential part of maintaining the data quality of a suite. The newest version of the API, 2.0, does not currently support accessing the processing rules, and it's been stated on Github that, as of this idea submission, processing rules access is not even on the roadmap. Unless Adobe is going to eliminate these rules (and the eVars and Props that are driven by them), a mature multi-site installation of Adobe Analytics, esp. across mobile and web, relies on a constant overview of processing rules for maintenance, QA, and to aid site and mobile app developers.Please make sure that processing rules are accessible via the APIs, not just in version 2.0, but in all future versions. Leaving 1.4 up is not a complete solution, as Adobe may deprecate it at any point.
Often we as Fusion develpoers can't go deeper than checking API responses, even with the DevTool.I would be just another level if we could for at least the Workfront and Authenticator Modules be able to see deeper logs behind the API calls and their responses. Otherwise we always have to involve support.The the idea would be to provide on option to check deeper logs in Fusion Flow Executions if needed.Have a good day
Description - a module that allows me to write custom ECMA script Why is this feature important to you - for data conversion, often the Fusion tools are less than ideal and require many tools/regex/JSON modules to accomplish things. Especially annoying is the inability to set attributes on an object. How would you like the feature to work - Would love a module that has an input field that takes N arguments, which can be selected from the popup panel text box that implicitly creates a function wrapper, with he selected arguments as inputs expects a return statement and the returned value is accessible in the flow as "output" similar to Switch module Bonus: ability to make this a named module, so it can be used in multiple places with just the inputs changing
Description - Ability to report on tasks only when all dependent predecessors have been marked as complete; otherwise, the report should not show that task as something that's ready to be worked upon.Why is this feature important to you - Our teams heavily depend on previous task completion to begin the next work. With that there is a lot of time that would be spent manually on going through all tasks to see what is ready.How would you like the feature to work - If I look at a task reportCurrent Behaviour - tasks shows even if one of the predecessor is marked as complete and the task actually has more than one predecessor. Only when all predecessors tagged on that task are complete, then show me the data. Copy of the report I created while working with Adobe ticket assistance and we didnt achieve what was needed.https://deloitte.my.workfront.com/report/6877aaea000166e652c792ceb63b6ae0/detail
On the new "Subscribing to Items in Workfront" feature that was just released this week, it would be awesome to bulk subscribe to a list of items. This came up from those looking to cover while another team member is out. Right now you can only do it from the going to each landing page and subscribing individually.
Description:Allow users to highlight areas in a proof when replying to comments, not just when creating new ones.Importance:Stakeholders often miss highlighting content or only mark part of what's relevant. This would improve clarity and streamline review workflows.How it could work:When replying to a comment in a proof, users should have the option to create a new highlight linked to their reply.Current Behaviour:Highlighting is only available when adding a new comment, not when replying to an existing one.
Description - When marketing operations use workfront planning for their campaign planning, the stakeholders would want to convert a plan (planning record) into a brief (request) in workfront. post this conversion either using fusion or manual request submission, the ideal experience for a 360 view of a campaign plan would be to link the brief (request) back to the campaign plan. However the current planning config doesn't have option to relate a request object record.Why is this feature important to you - This impacts the brief intake process and indicate a critical gap between Workfront planning and Workfront on a Content Supply Chain workflow for a Marketer.How would you like the feature to work - Create a relationship connection between Workfront planning record type with Workfront request object.Current Behavior - No Option to relate Workfront Planning record with Request object in Workfront
We would like to add the same person to a review route twice in different stages. We have the project owners review proofs in stage 2, but then also need to review again in the last stage after everyone else has reviewed, so they can review other's comments, comment back for clarification or answer any questions.Why is this feature important to you - Streamlines the process. Currently, the project manager has to reach out to the project owner after the route is complete to confirm there aren't any comments that need to be responded to, and wait for the project owner to reach back out to them when they've had the chance to review again. If they can be added again to the final stage, they will get the automatic email notification that it's their turn again. Once the review is complete, the PM knows it can be routed straight back to the necessary team without any additional steps in the process.
Hi, Please build an out-of-the box OpenID Connect(OIDC) Authentication handler in Adobe Experience Manager(v6.5, on-premise) with an external identity provider Azure AD using the OIDC protocol.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: In the Cloud Manager > Pipelines > Exprience Audit, allow to define custom request headers. Use-case: This is required for customers using BYOCDN, as we need to provide X-Edge-Key header to access the AEMaaCS publisher. Current/Experienced Behavior: Cannot use Experience Audit in BYOCDN setup where AEMaaCS publisher is not publicly available. Improved/Expected Behavior: Can use Experience Audit in BYOCDN setup where AEMaaCS publisher is not publicly available. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): 2025.5.21005.20250522T173058Z Customer-name/Organization name: Assa Abloy Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Enhance Dispatcher cache invalidation mechanisms to support automatic, granular purging of cached content fragment updates without manual rule configuration. Use-case: Organizations using AEM Content Fragments heavily rely on Dispatcher caching for performance. When content fragments are updated or versioned, the cache often does not invalidate automatically, leading to stale content being served until manual cache flushes occur. Current/Experienced Behavior: Dispatcher requires explicit cache flush rules or manual cache invalidation after content fragment changes. This is error-prone, inefficient, and can lead to content inconsistencies on live sites. Improved/Expected Behavior: Provide built-in intelligent cache invalidation that automatically detects changes in content fragments (including variations, tags, or linked metadata) and triggers selective Dispatcher cache purges. This reduces operational overhead and ensures up-to-date content delivery. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 6.5.x (including Cloud Service), Dispatcher configurations with typical cache rules, Content Fragments managed via AEM Assets Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: We request the ability to sort folders located at the root level of the AEM DAM, similar to how sorting is currently available for subfolders within other folders. Use-case: As a user managing digital assets in AEM, I need to be able to sort the folders at the root level of the DAM to improve navigation and asset management efficiency, especially when dealing with a large number of folders. Current/Experienced Behavior: Currently, folders at the root level of the DAM cannot be sorted. Only subfolders within other folders have sorting options available. Improved/Expected Behavior: Folders at the root level of the DAM should have the same sorting capabilities as subfolders, allowing users to organize them as needed. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Service Customer-name/Organization name: ACCIONA SA Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Block publishing of folder/assets to AEM Publisher but allow to Brand Portal Use-case: We are using Brand Portal and we have users who accidently publish the assets to AEM publisher in place of Brand Portal. At the ACL level, it is only possible to grant or deny a user the ability to replicate generally with crx:replicate which does not work individually for AEM publisher and Brand portal. (Both can be granted or both can be denied) Current/Experienced Behavior: We can deny the users to replicate to AEM publisher and Brand Portal as a whole. Improved/Expected Behavior: We can deny the users to replicate to AEM publisher and Brand Portal individually. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM cloud Customer-name/Organization name: Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Update the Sidekick browser extension when navigating Edge Delivery Sites, to include the following:- Ability to move the sidekick. Right now it's anchored to the bottom - Have a way to show if the page that we're on can show what other pages are linked to it, which would be a helpful reference Use-case: As an author, I would like to position the sidekick on the browser. As an author, it helps to be able to know what pages are linking to the one I'm on. Current/Experienced Behavior: No way to position the sidekick or view linking pages. Improved/Expected Behavior: Position the sidekick and view linking pages. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Edge Delivery Services site, Google Docs Customer-name/Organization name: Perficient Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Enhancement request for Search Insights UI – expanding keyword display, refining date range filters, and enabling raw data export. Use-case: The customer wants to better evaluate the performance of search-related metadata by understanding which keywords are most frequently searched. This helps validate metadata tagging and optimize asset discoverability. They need more flexibility in analyzing search behavior both through UI and downloadable reports. Current/Experienced Behavior: The UI currently only shows the top 5 keywords. Available time filters are limited to “last 30 days” or “last 1 year”. Users cannot export raw data, such as search terms and their respective search counts. Improved/Expected Behavior: Ability to display more than 5 top keywords (e.g., top 10, 20, or customizable number). More granular date range options (e.g., weekly, monthly, custom ranges). Option to export anonymized raw data (e.g., search phrase and search count) directly from the UI or from the report tab (where the customer can export upload/download data) for further analysis. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Service 2025.5.21005.20250522T173058Z Customer-name/Organization name: LG Electronics Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Our Corporate Nexus Infrastructure (which contains non-public artifacts needed for the Build Pipeline) has IP restrictions in place. We have to explicitely IP-whitelist any client that tries to fetch artifacts from it. Currently, the Build Pipeline cannot access it because the IPs used are non-deterministic and not documented. Use-case: Maven Build Pipelines need artifacts from Corporate Nexus that has IP restrictions in place. Current/Experienced Behavior: Maven Build Pipelines are not allowed to access Corporate Nexus. Improved/Expected Behavior: The IP addresses used by the Maven Build Pipelines are documented, hence whitelisted at our infrastructure, the Maven Build Pipelines can access the Corporate Nexus and fetch the required artifacts. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM as a Cloud Service Customer-name/Organization name: Helvetia Versicherungen Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Idea is to introduce Adobe PDF auto-tag API functionality while trying to upload the PDFs. This will enhance the accessibility of the pdfs on the system. Use-case: We have experienced lot of non-accessible or semi-accessible pdfs on AEM assets and it will be explicit effort to re-run the auto-tag API separately to make them accessible. Current/Experienced Behavior: If auto-tag API has to be used, we need to separately run the API by uploading the PDFs on Adobe cloud to generate Asset ID to perform any operation. Improved/Expected Behavior: Make PDFs accessible with automated workflow to trigger the Auto tag API. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): NA Customer-name/Organization name: Deloitte Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Enable me to search AEM Assets that contain a particular part of a music track by uploading a part of that music track. Use-case: If we have rights to use a particular piece of music for a limited period of time, we would like to be able to search the DAM to check that all instances if usage have been archived by the end date of the contract, without relying on assets owners tagging the assets. Current/Experienced Behavior: There's no way to search the DAM today to check that all video assets have been archived that use the track, so we risk usage rights issues. Improved/Expected Behavior: Confidence that all rights managed assets have been archived. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Assets Cloud Customer-name/Organization name: A UK Financial Institution Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Failed Asset Bulk Uploads Error is replaced with a more specific error or lets correct assets upload Use-case: User need to understand which file is causing errors during upload, elsewise they need to uplaod one by one. Current/Experienced Behavior: Whenever a user is uploading assets in bulk and only one asset is faulty (unsupported filetype, or other) the whole upload errs and one generic error message is displayed. Improved/Expected Behavior: The error message specifies the impacted asset(s) or all correct assets are uploaded and only the faulty assets get rejected (and generate an error message) Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM Assets Author instance Customer-name/Organization name: ALDI SUED (Marketing Solutions) Screenshot (if applicable): Example of faulty file: I couldn't upload the asset here, so please use this sft link: 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.
