https://community.appian.com/discussions/en-USTelligent Community 12https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/plug-ins/40415/pdf-from-html-plugin---overflow-of-the-text-in-normal-paragraph-field/154594Wed, 13 May 2026 07:57:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:482e7f9b-41a7-4e03-a0df-7a6813c1e80fShubham AwareUse this CSS in the HTML before PDF generation: white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-wrap: break-word; If the text is inside a table, also set table-layout: fixed; width: 100%; and put the text in a or , not plain inline text.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/general/40414/dev-days/154593Wed, 13 May 2026 06:22:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:c7538323-4db6-43f3-9660-e030ec6ee6b3VarunTejaGurrapuAs of now No information, recently in Feb, it has already hosted in india. So not sure! Someone from Appian Team can assist!https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/plug-ins/40415/pdf-from-html-plugin---overflow-of-the-text-in-normal-paragraph-field/154592Wed, 13 May 2026 04:38:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:3d88ecdf-6d67-4bc9-b03b-4e0d68a74e03gayathris876948Try adding word-wrap and white-space CSS to your paragraph html your long text here... word-wrap: break-word — breaks long words/strings at the container boundary overflow-wrap: break-word — modern equivalent, use both for compatibility white-space: pre-wrap — preserves line breaks (\n) from your Appian text field and wraps normallyhttps://community.appian.com/discussions/f/plug-ins/40361/issues-with-adt-files/154591Wed, 13 May 2026 04:31:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:d02ef907-53b8-4f1d-9403-f6474be8e25agayathris876948I think there might be a couple of things contributing to both the visible placeholders and the document corruption after saving. One thing I noticed is that the `#if` block is being closed using: ```xml id="m7n2vs" ``` Since `/#if` is more of a block-level directive, it may work better as: ```xml id="0g8cxv" ``` My guess is that using `@after-row` here could be confusing the ADT engine a bit, so the SDT control is not getting cleaned up properly and ends up remaining visible in the generated document. I also noticed that some ` ` elements seem to be using the same `w:id` value, for example: ```xml id="e1wxj0" ``` From what I’ve seen, Word expects each content control to have a unique ID. Reusing the same `w:id` across multiple SDTs can sometimes cause document structure issues, especially after editing and saving the file in Word. It might help to assign a unique integer ID to each ` ` block and test again.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/plug-ins/40415/pdf-from-html-plugin---overflow-of-the-text-in-normal-paragraph-field/154590Tue, 12 May 2026 17:36:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:498ae793-3f33-4719-9d29-f8c3910749a7Stefan HelzleDid you read my blog post on this topic? https://appian.rocks/2023/10/23/great-pdfs-with-appian/https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/integrations/40410/send-document-as-base64---soap-integration/154589Tue, 12 May 2026 16:20:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:9ef784a0-c729-48f7-a8b2-49ab5ac5dd64erickjavidb860617Thank you for your response and for sharing your experience. I’m going to try the database plugin approach first and evaluate how stable it is in our case. As you mentioned, I’ll make sure to clean up the temporary table after each execution. If that approach becomes difficult to maintain or introduces performance issues, I’ll probably consider either a custom plugin or an intermediate service to handle the XML/Base64 transformation outside of Appian. Thanks again for the suggestions.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/plug-ins/40415/pdf-from-html-plugin---overflow-of-the-text-in-normal-paragraph-fieldTue, 12 May 2026 16:18:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:fc977397-6283-4083-812c-3a3bb60d4e8esayalic0004I have a requirement where need to generate the PDF document. if i add text which is more that 4000k then text gets overflow the screen and it comes in single line. How to add a line break so that the text should be in paragraph itself.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/general/40414/dev-daysTue, 12 May 2026 15:19:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:8ea041a9-7d64-4e16-a3ba-5ad5926b0078Adam WartellAre there any upcoming Appian Dev Days? I've been to a couple in the past. One in NYC and on in Jersey.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/plug-ins/40361/issues-with-adt-files/154588Tue, 12 May 2026 13:28:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:5551356f-25ba-48e5-8490-c8aae1567c3bmohammad rahhalHi Flávio, I would avoid editing document.xml directly if possible, because it can easily leave Word content controls or invalid table structure behind. A safer approach would be to rebuild that section in the Word template itself: put the condition around the whole table vs. the “No data” paragraph, and keep the loop only on the repeating table row. If the conditional or loop placeholders are placed inside the wrong part of the table structure, ADT may still generate the data correctly but leave the controls visible in the output. For the edit/save issue, I would also check whether any content controls remain in the generated DOCX. If they do, Word may modify them when the user edits the file, which could explain why the document becomes corrupted after saving.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/administration/40413/cannot-request-saml-assertion-for-sbaf-authorize-click-since-user-is-not-valid-for-sbaf/154587Tue, 12 May 2026 12:31:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:b3670a1f-0e56-4521-8d5c-b91f794922bfgayathris876948Run a SAML Trace, capture exactly what the IdP is sending. The KB article KB-1450 specifically covers how to gather a SAML trace to identify the Appian username shown in the SAML assertion — this will tell you definitively what value SBAF is trying to validate against. Appianhttps://community.appian.com/discussions/f/best-practices/40366/pessimistic-locking/154586Tue, 12 May 2026 12:24:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:6b750606-a0c7-4129-a874-175682878daaMike Schmitt[quote userid="335211" url="~/discussions/f/best-practices/40366/pessimistic-locking/154584"]Appian does not provide a direct equivalent of `SELECT FOR UPDATE`, which means multiple users may end up selecting the same “next” voucher concurrently.[/quote] If you implement a process that quickly (in successive nodes) does this check-then-write, structured like I described in my prior comment, then users will not be able to do this. Not accidentally, and not even if they're testing to try to break the system you have set up. [quote userid="335211" url="~/discussions/f/best-practices/40366/pessimistic-locking/154584"] whether pessimistic locking on such an object could become a bottleneck or cause noticeable performance degradation. [/quote] If your system can already handle several thousand users working concurrently, a system like the one I described should make little to no performance difference. [quote userid="335211" url="~/discussions/f/best-practices/40366/pessimistic-locking/154584"]Any insights would be greatly appreciated[/quote] Just design something and test it. Keep the lead-up sequence tight, and pay attention to the ordering of the nodes so as to handle the different use cases (e.g. when two users both click the same task within a few seconds of each other from their task lists).https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/administration/40413/cannot-request-saml-assertion-for-sbaf-authorize-click-since-user-is-not-valid-for-sbaf/154585Tue, 12 May 2026 12:13:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:3d50c515-fddd-4805-ac7b-c2010c6aacafShubham AwareIs this user logging in for the first time, or did it work before and suddenly broke? Still you can check few basic things :- Check user is active and should be part of SAML Users/authentication group. Verify the IdP is sending the exact Appian username, with correct case. If group sync enabled, confirm user is in auth group prior to SAML login, as sync happens post-auth. FYI - https://community.appian.com/support/w/kb/370/kb-1153-saml-authentication-faqhttps://community.appian.com/discussions/f/best-practices/40366/pessimistic-locking/154584Tue, 12 May 2026 11:07:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:bd48b217-2fb6-4915-abfc-0311bdc3837eMMSorry for the delayed follow-up, and thank you very much for your responses. Thank you for the detailed explanations so far — they are very helpful. Let me add more context about my actual use case, as it seems quite relevant to the DB-backed task example you mentioned. In our business scenario, multiple users work together to review and correct already-registered voucher (transaction) records in Appian. The workflow is not task-based; instead, users pick records from a shared pool and work on them one by one. The intended behavior is: - When a user starts working on a voucher, its status is updated to “In Progress”. - The voucher that was previously being handled by the user is set back to “Accepted” (or a completed state). - We need to ensure that the same voucher cannot be picked by multiple users at the same time. In a traditional database design, this would typically be handled using something like `SELECT FOR UPDATE` to atomically claim the next voucher. However, as far as I understand, Appian does not provide a direct equivalent of `SELECT FOR UPDATE`, which means multiple users may end up selecting the same “next” voucher concurrently. Because of this limitation, we are considering introducing a dedicated object (or table) to manage voucher assignment and status, and using pessimistic locking to ensure exclusive ownership while a voucher is being edited. My concern is scale: in peak periods, several thousand users may perform this operation at roughly the same time. That raises the question of whether pessimistic locking on such an object could become a bottleneck or cause noticeable performance degradation. Given this context, I would appreciate guidance on: - Whether this type of “first-claim-wins” record assignment is a reasonable use case for pessimistic locking in Appian - Any design patterns or architectural techniques to minimize contention and performance impact (for example, batching, sharding, or alternative locking approaches) - Or whether there is a more Appian-native pattern that would be preferable for this kind of scenario Any insights would be greatly appreciated.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/administration/40413/cannot-request-saml-assertion-for-sbaf-authorize-click-since-user-is-not-valid-for-sbafTue, 12 May 2026 10:18:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:7ebb3f6d-4ef0-443b-890c-cf955dd61516Behin JebarsonWhen user logs in using SAML, they face 403 access denied error. We checked the users ID and they have the required access levels. When checked on tomcat-stdout logs we see the following issue 'Cannot request SAML Assertion for SBAF Authorize Click since user is not valid for SBAF' . Any leads on this?saml authenticationhttps://community.appian.com/discussions/f/general/40397/extract-meta-data-of-all-documents-in-environment/154583Tue, 12 May 2026 08:00:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:9219b3ff-3184-4045-92c0-e1f2cb96873achitra_sharmaMy Knowledge Centers are created at root without any parent community or parent KC, each request has KC created at root dynamically. Around 10,000 + and growing. I want to extract all KC from here, one way is I scan whole environment objects and extract only KC types but not where should I stop the scan or recursive loop. Any idea about this?https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/general/40412/issue-with-getgridcontents-function-in-26-3/154581Tue, 12 May 2026 06:09:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:31364d0a-a879-4bcd-b7c8-873d168957b0shivakanthreddyp0001Hi Amey, Are you using gridField or gridLayout? We are using gridLayout and we still facing the same issue.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/general/40412/issue-with-getgridcontents-function-in-26-3/154580Tue, 12 May 2026 06:04:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:22d9c895-0a4e-439e-bd47-c20722036d0eamey.dusadThank you Subham for your answer. This solves the issue.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/general/40412/issue-with-getgridcontents-function-in-26-3/154579Tue, 12 May 2026 05:27:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:25410a42-5ed3-48a3-af02-0717ad029060Shubham Awarea!gridField has evolved to a!gridField_26r2 in 26.3, which likely changed the rendering structure causing getGridContents() to lose the grid label reference. Refer to the Function and Component Versions . If your Selenium API JAR is already up to date, raise an Support ticket as this appears to be a regression.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/general/40412/issue-with-getgridcontents-function-in-26-3/154578Tue, 12 May 2026 04:23:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:485ac13e-abff-4ff1-aafd-d857b21d6ae4subhankar-MaanticPlease Inspect the grid label DOM element in 26.3 using browser dev tools — compare the HTML structure against 25.4 to see if the element tag, class, or attribute changed.https://community.appian.com/discussions/f/general/40412/issue-with-getgridcontents-function-in-26-3Tue, 12 May 2026 02:10:00 GMTd3a83456-d57b-489c-a84c-4e8267bb592a:9bb53858-1a5a-41bb-ad85-207f371a801cshivakanthreddyp0001Hi all, We recently upgraded to Appian 26.3 . During regression testing using Appian Selenium API, our scripts are failing while reading grid data. The getGridContents() function is not able to read the grid label , although it is able to read the rows and columns . The same script works as expected in Appian 25.4 . Has anyone else faced this issue? I would appreciate any inputs or insights. FYI, our libraries are up to date. Thanks in advance.Appian Selenium APIautomation testingtesting