Skip to main content

Filter by idea status

10000+ Ideas

ASSET-LINK - enable opening the asset shown/used/worked on in PS, IA, ID etc. directly in AEMInvestigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: When using asset-link, I can search for and use assets out of AEM directly in Creative Cloud Applications. But when I found an asset, I might want to check it's metadata, or check the folder it's in for other assets, and such. The asset-link UI is not good for such activities, and cannot do them.As such, it would be great to be able to directly open the asset directly in AEM - using the information asset-link already has to open the asset in the browser in AEM-ASSETS.Searching though cloudmanager for the right environment, then searching for the right asset inside of AEM is cumbersum and error-prone. Use-case: check/edit metadata of files used in asset-link review the folder the asset used in asset-link is in preview the edited  asset in AEM with renditions etc.  preview the edited asset in the experience the asset is for (website, etc.)  Current/Experienced Behavior: The asset cannot be opened in AEM using asset-link Improved/Expected Behavior: Being able to open the asset in AEM ASSETS in the browser directly from asset link. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): all AEM versions, but especially Cloud Services. Customer-name/Organization name: Adobe Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

content_publisherNew Participant

enhance reporting features for Expired AEM AssetsInvestigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: enhance feature set for AEM Asset Reporting  Use-case: We propose the implementation of a new features in Adobe Experience Manager (AEM) that allows users to create custom report templates for asset management. These templates can be saved and scheduled to run at user-defined intervals, such as monthly. The primary purpose of this feature is to facilitate the generation of reports that scan for assets scheduled to expire within a specified timeframe and defined meta data parameters. Key Features: Custom Report Template Creation: Users can create and save custom report templates and use again. Templates can include custom metadata fields configured by the user. Scheduling: Users can define a schedule for the report to run automatically, such as daily, weekly, or monthly. Email Delivery: Users can register one or more email addresses to receive the generated report. The report can be sent as a PDF attachment or as a link to a dashboard in AEM. Interactive Reports: The report includes thumbnails of the assets. Users can interact with the report by clicking on links that direct them to the respective assets in AEM. This can be implemented as an interactive dashboard within AEM or as clickable links in a PDF report. Use Case Example: A marketing team schedules a monthly report that identifies assets due to expire within the next specific parameters. The report includes thumbnails and key metadata fields such as asset name, expiration date, and usage rights. The report is sent via email to the team, and they can quickly review the assets and click on links to access them directly in AEM for further action.   Current/Experienced Behavior: Not able to save templated reports and can only schedule once or execute now. Report need to be reconfigured each time used. Report not interactive. If exported from system thumbnails of images are lost. Improved/Expected Behavior: Create recurring report that has thumbnails of images and has live links to the assets in AEM. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable):   Customer-name/Organization name:   Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

AG7New Participant

Cloud Managed Deployment Pipeline Feature Request : Allow pipeline to continue after publisher failureInvestigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: When a server fails to successfully deploy the pipeline aborts leaving servers in various states of deployment. Instead when a publisher fails, the failed publisher/dispatcher pair should be left out of rotation and the deployment should continue to the next server. A notification/incident is sent/created to CSE and customer. In an environment where there are 10 publisher/dispatcher pairs one server or even multiple servers failing can be left out of rotation and still serve proper traffic. The aborted pipelines in this case cause 8-9 hours of delays, sometimes days to resolve. This costs all parties a significant monetary and time loses. Please create a JIRA ticket and request for this. Keep me posted on when that is created and share regular updates on the progress of the request Use-case: In large infrastructures deploys can take 9-10 hours to completed.  One failure can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in delays that can take anywhere from 12 to days of additional deployment hours, leaving part of the infrastructure in varying states of deployment.  Rolling back or manually deploying to the remaining servers is not an option as content over 9-10 hours already has a delta, and manually deploying 30 packages across 21 servers takes even longer.  This feature would reduce hours, and cost significantly as well as reduce the  production server downtime caused by deployment failures due to infrastructure reasons. Current/Experienced Behavior: There are 10 publish/dispatcher pairs.  The deployment fails on publisher 3 because publisher 3 is experiencing an issue or high load, when this happens the entire deployment is aborted.  This leaves publisher/dispatcher pair 4 thru 10 un-deployed, so now we have author, pub1 and pub 2 serving traffic using new code and the rest of the stack serving traffic on old code.  To redeploy the pipeline again using the re-execute feature can take another 10 hours.   Improved/Expected Behavior: When a non author server fails to complete deployment, keep that publish/dispatcher pair out of rotation and continue the deployment to the rest of the infrastructure.  Alert custom and CSE that a publisher/dispatcher is out of rotation due to a deploy failure.   Add a feature into the CM pipeline that allows the ability to deploy to a single dispatcher publisher pair, or any server in your infrastructure.   Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 6.5.21 : 21 server infrastructure, 1 author, 10 publishers, 10 dispatchers.   Customer-name/Organization name: Undisclosed Screenshot (if applicable): N/A Code package (if applicable): N/A

aanchal-sikka
aanchal-sikkaNew Participant

Enhancing AEM Assets ReportsInvestigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Enhancing AEM Assets Reports with additional metadata fields that marketers can choose or deselect for generating reports would be advantageous. Furthermore, allowing marketers to create various asset report templates based on selected metadata and other criteria would provide even greater utility. Use-case: AEM Asset reports come with a predefined list of metadata that can be selected/deselected. Though custom metadata option is also available, but its technical. It would be good: - if the fields in the Asset Reports could be configured. - if a user could create an Asset Report template similar to Saved search and execute it when needed.  Current/Experienced Behavior: - Cannot add custom metadata as checkboxes as it lies in Internal Area  - Custom fields can be added buy defining exact property on Asset Report UI. Its too technical. Also, the configuration does not persist, thus one needs to configure it again before execution. Improved/Expected Behavior: It would be good: - if the fields in the Asset Reports could be configured. - if a user could create an Asset Report template similar to Saved search and execute it when needed.  Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 6.5/Cloud Customer-name/Organization name:   Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):  

IndrajitSiNew Participant

Secure Cached Content is not working for first requestInvestigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: I have implemented permission-based caching for our secure site. The site will perform user authentication before serving any secure content. I have followed the document for configurations and implementation-https://docs.adobe.com/docs/en/dispatcher/permissions-cache.html  For initial request/cached content not available, the Dispatcher directly calls AEM resulting in displaying the secure page without authentication. Use-case: Use Case 1: The user must be authenticated via the Dispatcher Auth Checker Servlet before serving secure content. Use Case 2: If the user's authentication via the Dispatcher Auth Checker Servlet fails, the dispatcher will not forward the original request to AEM. Current/Experienced Behavior: Current Behaviour for Use Case 1: When the requested content is not cached, the Dispatcher Auth Checker sends the request directly to the AEM publisher for page rendering, allowing the user to access secure content without authentication. Current Behaviour for Use Case 2: If user authentication fails, the dispatcher forwards the original request to the AEM publisher for page rendering without authentication. Improved/Expected Behavior:  Expected Behaviour for Use Case 1: The user must be authenticated via the Dispatcher Auth Checker Servlet before serving secure content.Expected Behaviour for Use Case 2: If the user's authentication via the Dispatcher Auth Checker Servlet fails, the dispatcher should not forward the original request to AEM. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Cloud Release - 2024.8.17465.20240813T175259Z Customer-name/Organization name: Boston Scientific (BSC)  Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):   @gurjotsingh @akashramchandani

IndrajitSiNew Participant

AEM Content Fragment New Editor issueInvestigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: I have implemented the composite Multifield in Content Fragment by referencing https://jimfrenette.com/aem/content-fragments/composite-multifield In this implementation, we have added custom Client-Libs for composite multifield and show/hide target functionality based on dropdown selection. These custom Client-Libs are loading correctly and working as expected in the old content editor. However, in the new content editor, the custom Client-Libs are not loading, causing the functionality to break.     Use-case: We have a dropdown, and on 3rd selection of the dropdown, multifield should show, and min value of multifield is 1 and max value is 5 Current/Experienced Behavior: When we open a new content fragment editor multifield is not getting hidden and giving a warning to add at least one item, as custom Client-Libs not loading Improved/Expected Behavior: In the New content fragment editor dropdown show/hide should work and also on the dropdown selection multifield items should show, Whereas in the old content fragment editor custom client libs are loading hence on the dropdown multifield is hiding and didn't get a warning Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): Cloud Release - 2024.8.17569.20240822T203847Z Customer-name/Organization name: Bosten Scientific (BSC) Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):   @indrajitsi @gurjotsingh 

AG7New Participant

Decouple Stage and Prod cloud managed deploy pipelinsInvestigating

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Here are some feature enhancments, these can be together or even just one of these implemented would solve a lot of problems 1.) Allow the selection of artifacts to deploy to production as one of the steps before deploying to production 2.) Decouple Stage and Production deployment pipeline.  Ability to deploy to Prod independently of deployment to stage 3.) Ability to start at production deployment simply by selecting previously built artifacts instead of having to start every time at the beginning of the pipeline. Use-case: Our product can contain ~171 modules which crashes the Adobe CM pipeline running the server out of resources. If the production publishers are overloaded the CM deployment fails to just one publisher it aborts the entire deployment.   In the above use cases if we can start from where we left off, or select the artifacts and maybe remove failing artifacts without starting over at the beginning of the pipeline that would improve efficiency.  Sometimes ou CM pipeline runs for 12 hours while it builds and deploys to production Current/Experienced Behavior: Unable to deploy to production and lack of robust pipelines Improved/Expected Behavior: Ability to deploy to stage and prod in parallel.  Ability to select artifacts to deploy to production without starting hte entire pipeline over again. Environment Details (AEM version/service pack, any other specifics if applicable): AEM 6.5.21 Customer-name/Organization name: N/A Screenshot (if applicable):   Code package (if applicable):