Build better products with our product team
Description - It would be wonderful if Workfront could identify duplicate values natively (without Fusion) when entered into a field.Why is this feature important to you - It would safeguard we don't have duplicate project numbers for future reference (we have customers that provide their own customer numbers/purchase order numbers, etc).How would you like the feature to work - A warning would come up if a specific field does not allow duplicate values.Current Behaviour - No way to identify if a duplicate project number is entered. Thus, if two users use the same project number, when searched, both would come up. It is very confusing for not only searching in WF, but also on our file server.
DescriptionAllow users to manually update or reassign the Group associated with a custom form in Adobe Workfront after the form has been created.Why is this feature important to youAs a System Admin, I often collaborate across multiple departments and groups. Custom forms are a key part of our intake and project tracking processes. However, when forms are created by users in one group, they become locked to that group—even if the form is intended for broader use. Being able to reassign the group would:Improve cross-functional collaboration.Streamline form governance and updates.Ensure forms are managed by the correct stakeholders.How would you like the feature to workI’d like to see a “Group” field editable by system admins or users with appropriate permissions. Ideally:The field could be updated in the form settings.A dropdown would allow selection from available groups.A confirmation prompt would warn about access changes or dependencies.Audit logs would track changes for accountability.This would mirror how other Workfront objects (like projects or templates) can be reassigned or shared across groups.Current BehaviorCurrently, the group is automatically assigned based on the home group of the user who created the form. The only workaround is to recreate the form using a user from the desired group, which is time-consuming and error-prone.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: The Preview environment should be in Sync with the Publisher, to be able to preview the changes and see only the needed modifications. At the moment, AEMaaCS relies on the publishers to replicate the changes to both environments (Preview and Publish) this could lead into errors, leaving the Preview environment out of sync and breaking the purpose of it. The request is to have a service running that triggers replication to the Preview environment as soon as one page gets published. Use-case: Improve usability of Preview instance since the publishers will see only the content modified Current/Experienced Behavior: The Preview and Publish instances relies on manual user input to be in sync (publish twice) Improved/Expected Behavior: Preview and Publish should be updated at the same time during replication Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM SDK 2025.10.22943.20251009T135918Z Customer-name/Organization name: UBS Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
The existing time dimensions (day, hour, minute) in the DWH are not fine-granular enough for a few clients' use case.Therefore, they are collecting the user-timestamp in milliseconds in a custom prop as a workaround for this issue. But this workaround has some disadvantages:a) User timestamp collected in the frontend is local and sometimes incorrect (days or years in the future/past)b) For some server calls, the prop is not collected / missingc) This workaround depends on the data collection (server-side timestamp would be independent of front-end data collection).Can this be considered a possible enhancement, making the server-side hit timestamp available as a dimension in the data warehouse?With my basic understanding, since DWH is the post-processed data. Any data on the DWH is the outcome of the raw data.Hence, this particular enhancement should first be in the data feed because the current data feed shows second-level information.
We have got ourselves into a situation where we have made many revisions to rules/elements which we have not published and no longer intend to publish. What is live and what is in our elements/rules are very different and it is now very difficult to get back to a clean baseline within rules and elements. The only way to do this is to manually revert every changed rule/element to match the current live version - very time consuming and prone to error. Please can you consider introducing a way to quickly update multiple elements/rules to match the live version?
Description - it is currently too cumbersome to commit to a new date. Users have to open the task to commit to a new date.Why is this feature important to you - users commit to new dates often so streamlined functionality is importantHow would you like the feature to work - from the My Tasks widget, open the summary area under quick actions and see the commit date field. OR have a commit date field as a column in the My tasks widget. Current Behaviour - Users have to open the task and select a new date from the commit date field.
Description - Many times database connection on Query Service get disconnected due to various reasons (limit of users reached being one of it). This affects the focus work as it disrupts the query execution, to avoid it User should have a connection refresh button which will allow the Database connection to be re-established without having to refresh the entire browser multiple times.Why is this feature important to you - Helps users to continue important focus query time without disruptionsHow would you like the feature to work - A simple refresh button the page should reestablish the connection to the database.Current Behaviour - Users need to copy the entire query and refresh the browser, it clear all the query results previous queries might have returned on the browser.
Description - We would like the option to be able to somehow setup repeatable deliverables in Workfront Planning. As it is now, if you want to repeat a campaign, etc. you need to manually copy any relevant record or develop something using Fusion or the API. Why is this feature important to you - Many of the initiatives that use Planning are inherently repeatable, from annual product launches to repeatable ad-spots, but there is no way to replicate a specific plan in order to be re-used for future plans. How would you like the feature to work - We would like to be able to either copy/ clone a record type and have all connected records also copy or the ability to create a Planning template from a specified record. Current Behaviour - Currently you can copy individual records but connections are not maintained so if you have an involved plan, you will need to manually copy each relevant record and add the connections or you would have you use Fusion or the API.
In the new unified approvals, you can't see the what was selected once a new version goes up. You have to flip back to the previous version to see who 'rejected' (needs work). You used to be able to see the approvals without having to flip between versions. Can be time consuming with a ton of documents to proof.
Today in MSI our sales team can create modified list views for Best Bets using basic "AND" statement logic . In many cases the team would like to be able to configure this list using more advanced logic such as "OR" statements and logic groupings. A AND (B OR C)
Companies typically update exchange rates annually. At present, Workfront does not support multi-year exchange rates. For instance, revising the exchange rates for FY25 impacts the financials of projects completed in FY24 and prior. While this may not influence projects with minor budgets, it becomes significant for those with larger budgets.Request: Implement custom exchange rates that include a year parameter.
Currently in the New Request Experience Beta when you filter by status (see first screenshot below), the options are:CompletedIn ProgressRejectedIn reviewPending ReviewOut of these statuses, we only use Completed and In Progress, and there are many statuses that we use that are missing. Additionally, new Requests are shown as "In Progress", even when the Requests are not yet in an In Progress status. This causes confusion for our users when there is a status mismatch between the Request itself and the Requests page. See the example below in screenshot 2 and 3 where it shows my test request as "In Progress" on the Requests screen, but when you go into the Request, the status is "New". Ideally, the filter options for the Requests page would include all of the active Issue status options, similar to what is available when filtering Issue status in a Report. The status shown in the status column on the Requests page should match the status that the Request is currently in. Description -Why is this feature important to you -How would you like the feature to work -Current Behaviour -
Description -Why is this feature important to you - as there are lot of data generated in Marketo Engage Email engagement data, having this filter option will enable only to ingest specific type of event records into platform, and not all the email engagement data. there are like millions are mails sent daily and we dont need all the email send events.How would you like the feature to work - similar to adobe analytics connector which has filtering optionCurrent Behaviour - there is no filter option for marketo engage source connector.
Description - When a field group is created for a specific class (lets say individual profile class), this field group by default wont be available for experience event class. where as we can extend the field group to experience event class through API. it will be beneficial to have this configuration done in UI.Why is this feature important to you - it is very useful to use the same field group for both individual profile class and experience event class. and this is possible now through API, but not UI.How would you like the feature to work - kind of a toggle button to extend the field group.Current Behaviour - currently it can be done through API, but not UI.
Description - Currently document proofs open in a new tab. We'd like for document proofs to open in the same tab. This feature is important to us because our team frequently opens and reviews proofs and they would like to toggle between the project and the proof in the same window. Proofs opening in a new tab is creating excessive amounts of open tabs for the team. Thank you
Description - Need to be able to see which user adds/removes custom forms on an objectWhy is this feature important to you - Fusion troubleshooting and investigation supportHow would you like the feature to work - Identify the user that made the update, identify the name of the form, and identify the timestampCurrent Behaviour - Addition/Removal of custom forms are not tracked in the update feeds as is stands today
When submitting a Adobe support ticket there is a selection of 129 time zones to choose from and it is difficult to find the one I need. There is a lot of scrolling through this long list because they are in not in alphabetic order. Perhaps you could offer up time zones in an easier way to navigate when submitting a ticket. Even better, having the system remember what I selected last time or what is linked in my profile would make this a much easier experience.
This idea proposal addresses a critical data integrity and reporting inconsistency in the existing Journal Entry Report related to Date custom fields. The report currently fails to correctly apply the user's time zone offset, resulting in dates that are one day off from the actual user-entered value displayed elsewhere in the platform. Description - The "New Date Value" column in a Journal Entry Report tracking edits to a Date-Only custom field (i.e., not a Date/Time field) often displays an incorrect date. This date is shifted by the user's UTC offset, resulting in a day mismatch compared to the date displayed in the Custom Form and the System Activity Log. This inconsistency arises because the report is not correctly translating the stored UTC date (which defaults to 12:00 AM UTC) into the viewing user's local time zone, causing the date to prematurely roll over to the previous day. Why is this feature important to you - Accurate reporting is fundamental to trusting a work management system. When a foundational report displays data that contradicts what's seen on the project itself and in the official activity log, it severely erodes user confidence and creates significant administrative overhead.Data Integrity and Trust: Contradictory dates force our teams to manually verify every data change, slowing down audits and governance processes. We need a single, reliable source of truth.Administrative Burden: The current workaround involves manually adding a text mode expression (ADDDAYS({}, 1)) to every single report column for every relevant Date field. This is not a sustainable or scalable long-term solution.Risk of Error: A manual offset workaround is fragile. It will break if users in other time zones view the report or if local time zone rules change (e.g., Daylight Saving Time shifts), introducing a high risk of new reporting errors.This is a request to fix a systemic design flaw (as acknowledged in support feedback) that prevents the Journal Entry Report from displaying the correct user-entered date consistently across the platform. How would you like the feature to work - The Journal Entry Report must be updated to apply the user's time zone offset to Date-Only custom field values consistently.Specifically:The date displayed in the "New Date Value" column must exactly match the date the user entered on the Custom Form and the date recorded in the System Activity Log.The system logic for the Journal Entry Report should be aligned with the logic used by the Project Custom Forms and the System Activity Log when displaying Date-Only custom fields, ensuring all three views show the same, correct local date.This fix should be system-wide and automatic, requiring no text mode workarounds or manual configuration changes by administrators for any Journal Entry Report. Current Behaviour - When a user in a time zone with a negative UTC offset (e.g., Central Standard Time, UTC-6) enters a date (e.g., 10/30/25) into a Date-Only custom field:Custom Form: Displays the correct user-entered date (10/30/25).System Activity Log: Records and displays the correct user-entered date (10/30/25).Journal Entry Report (in "New Date Value" column): Incorrectly displays the date as the UTC-adjusted date (10/29/25), shifting the date by one day due to the 12:00 AM UTC default crossing the day boundary in the user's local time zone.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Added configurability for retaining applied filters when a user navigates away from a page where there are filters applied. Use-case: Improved user experience, greater levels of control/customisation over our environment. Current/Experienced Behavior: As a user on Asset UI/AEMaaCS/AEM Assets, when I apply filters for a search and navigate away from the page with filters applied and return to the search, the filters are cleared. This means that I have to reapply the filters to return the same search. Improved/Expected Behavior: I want the filters to remain applied so that I do not have to add the filters again. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Asset UI/AEMaaCS/AEM Assets Customer-name/Organization name: NatWest Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Cloud Manager: Move Pipeline Configuration from "Source" to "Configuration" tab. Use-case: Configuring Pipelines Current/Experienced Behavior: Configurations are distributed randomly in unrelated tabs, Improved/Expected Behavior: The Pipeline Configuration is not related to the source code repository. Thus it is more intuitive to place it under the "Configuration" tab rather then "Source". Even better would be to divide the tabs as - General - Behavior - Source - Test and Experience Audit Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): CloudManager / all Customer-name/Organization name: all Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable): n/a
Currently, the closest thing in Fusion to a Loop is the Repeater Module with hardcoded i and n variables. A loop module in Workfront fusion is greatly needed with the following capabilities.Ability to set i and n for loop.Ability to update i real time during loopAbility to escape loop once case is metAdding all types of loops... for each, do while etc. would be a home run.Fusion 1.0 had this type of logic and hoping we can get some of it back again.Current functionality does not allow for escaping the loop when certain condition is achieve so the loop is optimal. Now we are forced to indicate the number of iterations to a max number which is suboptimal from a processing point of view.
Description -While working in the source workspace, I've noticed two key usability gaps that affect data management efficiency:1. Missing Date-Based Sorting/Filtering.Currently there is no option to filter or sort files on a source folder by their date of availability or uploaded time.This make it difficult to locate newly available files or track which data arrived most recently -especially when the number of files is large.Adding a simple date filter or filter (e.g: Last 7 days, 30 days or custom range) would make it much easier to ingest files or validate latest ingestions.2. Dataflow Filter Performance IssuesThe existing filter under Dataflows is slow to load and often returns incomplete or inaccurate results.Optimizing the Dataflow filter logic and improving response times would significantly help teams manage multiple dataflows and save time.Why is this feature important to you -Easier identification of newly uploaded data to ingest.Faster and more accurate Dataflow managementOverall improvement in user experience and operational efficiency for AEP users handling larger datasets.
Description - Ability to in-line edit External Lookups with dependencies on list views. Curently we are able to edit fields that do not have dependencies.Why is this feature important to you - This is important because since the field is working fine on a custom form, it should essentially work on the list view as well. Having the ability to edit the field but restricted due to a technical limitation is not a great user experience.How would you like the feature to work - Ability to in-line edit External Lookups with dependencies on list views. The external lookup field should be able to process the URL with dependency on any other field.Current Behaviour - Curently we are able to edit external lookup fields that do not have dependencies I referred to this post: Custom forms: External Lookup – Usage in Views & F... - Adobe Experience League Community - 637209 and looks like the last update, to edit external lookup fields inline, was made last year. I think it has been way too long to keep this feature from the end users. To completely implement editability of External Lookup fields, this Idea needs to be implemented.
Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Offer an option to disable the new Assets UI Use-case: Our users work in AEM and are used utilize the AEM UI also to upload assets to AEM Assets Console. The new Assets UI should not be used as as e.g. important custom validation of file names or folders that we have implement as customizations are not effective. Current/Experienced Behavior: As new Assets UI is completely decoupled from AEM UI for Assets console, custom validations on file and folder names are not effective. Therefore unwanted file names and folder patterns are possible to create. Improved/Expected Behavior: We as a customer want to control if and when our users could see/use the new Assets UI. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Customer-name/Organization name: Carl Zeiss AG Screenshot (if applicable): Code package (if applicable):
Description - When using Fixed Dates times constraint, have the 'Actual Completion Date' field give the 'Actual' date the task was completed. Why is this feature important to you - It logically doesn't make sense for the Actual Completion Date to not give the date the task was actually completed. When it comes to to start of the month and we're billing clients for the work completed in the previous month it seems to me like we are not billing for work completed at the very start of the month. However these tasks were actually completed in the previous month, but the dates don't align to this. This affects other reporting too when we're trying to drill down on specifics for when tasks were completed. How would you like the feature to work - the Actual Completion Date should give the Actual date the task was completed for all Task Constraints. Current Behaviour - The Actual Completion Date field currently gives the Planned Completion date where a task Constraint of Fixed Dates is used.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
