I’m trying to investigate issue when one macro is used within other Confluence bodied macro.
In my case it’s our News Teaser macro added to Navitabs - Tabs for Confluence Cloud.
Problem is: all AP methods I tried return neither success nor error. I checked AP.request() and AP.getContext(). Both have same behavior.
Hi @andrey,
While static macros that don’t require the use of AP might work well in this scenario, I think you can say that the concept of nested macros is generally not well supported in the cloud. In the specific scenario mentioned, apps like Navitabs would have to provide a bridge to your iframe like Atlassian does to support the AP calls from your macro.
So, it’s more that Navitabs doesn’t support nested macros that use AP, and there’s probably nothing you can do on your end (except maybe let them know).
Cheers,
Sven
2 Likes
Hi Sven
Oli from bitvoodoo here. You mean if we create a bridge to the iframes within our Tabs app it may could work for the nested macro.
You tried it out?.
Interesting idea. May we can try this @andrey together with @sascha.haeusler from our team 
Thanks for the input.
Cheers
Oli
1 Like
I have never tried it out myself but from reading about it, debugging Atlassian code, and looking at the readme that’s what I understood from it.
EDIT: Well, looking at it in more detail it might not be super practical because it looks like Navitabs would have to provide “its own all.js” that the nested macro would have to load and use in place of the actual all.js… but if you two want to work together to make your apps compatible this looks like it’s the way you’d have to go.
Cheers,
Sven
Update: Flagged this with the relevant team, they’ll be circling on this thread shortly to provide more context. Standby!
2 Likes
@oliver.straesser
I’m happy to try something. Looking forward for response from Atlassian
Regards,
Andrey
@SimonKubica Any news on that?
Also, resizing is not supported, as I mentioned here: Macro with body does not properly resize child macros
I assume that this is part of the issue. Could the team have a look here as well?
Simon, we would really appreciate a response from Atlassian on this question – it’s a pretty fundamental limitation to customer experience with applications that rely on nesting, such as NaviTabs.
I’ve just circled back with @ElaineH (on point for this) and confirmed that an update from the team is still in the works and will land in this thread shortly
Sorry about the wait, and as always we appreciate your enduring patience with us 
1 Like
Would be cool to hear if there is a workaround we can implement so that nested macros in our macro are working.
Thank you for your patience, all! I’m Elaine, PM for Confluence Cloud Ecosystem. I can confirm that nested bodied macros is not supported in the cloud Fabric editor. Some of them may work in the cloud TinyMCE legacy editor.
Please head over to my latest community post where I discuss our roadmap including more details on this particular topic. Confluence Cloud extensibility update - Feb 2021: A review and sneak peek into the future
1 Like
Am here to try and do some traceback to understand original thinking behind preventing nested macros from working, as this is causing significant issues in a cloud migration project I’m working in. Lots of legacy content authored with live templates, scaffolding and reporting apps that will now not migrate if it occurs within a nested pattern. We’re been working with both the App vendor and Atlassian to help identify some approaches that help us identify occurrences of the nesting behaviour, as content will not migrate unless its transformed in the source pages of DataCentre. Have done a brief writeup and seeking more input at https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Atlassian-Migration-Program/Handling-nested-macro-discovery-at-scale-in-Confluence/qaq-p/2268009#M2053
Hey @BrianHill, this remains a major issue for app vendors and customers alike. Atlassian however are currently doing some discovery on the importance of nesting cloud. If you haven’t already, I would recommend completing their form and chatting to the PM in charge of the project (who also might be able to give you the reasons for why it was dropped). More info here:
1 Like
Thanks, yes, have completed the survey but also pointed out its limitations as the samples provided in it really don’t cover the array of use-cases of 3rd party authored bodied macros. These are important Apps for customers for which Atlassian seem to consistently miss the importance and relevance. For some of the vendors who’ve had bodied macro solutions in place for years, it means substantial content volumes have been created, relying on that extended functionality, which now breaks when facing migration scenarios to cloud.
Makes for unhappy customers when they face data loss scenarios or need to substantially rewrite previously authored content.
We couldn’t agree more and shared the same concerns with the team working on the project. Hopefully we’ll get a further update.