Conditional custom fields in checklist section
When working with checklists, we face the problem that in the case of a tailored checklist, it needs to be marked somehow. The actual solution is a custom field (dropdown) to choose whether the checklist is tailored or not. But in case of tailoring it is mandatory to give more information. That is, if tailoring "yes" is selected, a second field should be mandatory to insert additional information. One possible way would be to use drop-down series fields in the checklist tab. (Currently not offered) In the best cases, the checkbox is automatically activated as soon as tailoring is selected with Yes. An option on how tailored check questions can be handled would be helpful.
Auto logout from web interface
Requesting a setting for administrators to set to logout (and free floating licenses) after a set time of inactivity, ex. 1 hour. My users have the behavior to open their browser to login to CC but unfortuanetlly don't close the tab, nor do they logout of the server, what hinders other users to not be able to receive a new license. This is very important for our company.
Add a capability to tag another user in the comment box
Sometimes, you want a different person to look at something, or respond to a comment. My team would like Collaborator to have a capability to tag another user. For example, in Jira, you can use "@lastname,firstname" to tag another user. We would like a similar capability in the comment boxes.
document compare
I often find most of the changes are boilerplate changes, typically the date and/or document revision number in the footer. This means “jump to next change” is not particularly helpful since it takes me through each footer of every page. I know it will be non-trivial, but it would be amazing if there would be a way to skip this sort of boilerplate change that changes on every revision and isn’t really a change.Code Review Comment - Multi Line Selection
User experience would be greatly improved if the reviewer could associate their comment or defect to a range of lines instead of just a single line. Additionally, if that range could also be inclusive of characters within a single line that would also be appreciated. When comments or defects are part of a large block of code being able to accurately call out an area of code instead of just a top line of code is helpful.
Clone Checklists
Currently Collaborator supports Cloning a review template. A similar feature would be very helpful for Checklists. Often time you want to modify/add/remove some questions from an existing checklist, and you have to copy the checklist manually line by line, making changes where needed. Have a '[clone]' option similar to the one for Review Templates would be helpful.Allow Deletion of Individual Review Uploads
We're human. We make mistakes. And some of us are fastidious. I hate seeing files which were wrongly uploaded or obsolete in my list of files to review. Also, most of us like to be efficient. We don't want to have to delete our whole uploaded file list just to clean up a few files. We should be allowed to delete individual review uploads. You have a nice tool, but it is frustrating not to be able to do so.Simplify conversion of a comment to a defect
Very frequently comments are added in a review that need to be converted to defects. The "ADD AS DEFECT" button is used but the defect text is blank. In this use case, the comment is the defect. This requires manual copy/paste, restating the comment, or adding a description of "see comment". This product enhancement request is to pre-populate the defect text box when converting a comment to a defect. This would steamline upgrading comments to defects.
Reference the Line of Another File in the Same Review
In the chat box of file foo.cc I would like to reference a specific line in file bar.cc.For example, I have bar.cc:line 12 written in my code collab chat box. In this case, code-collab only recognizes and allows the jump to bar.cc, but not to the line. I would like a featurewhere a designer canwrite a reference to line 12 in bar.cc and Collaborator automatically auto-links the to the correct line.Enhanced support for Collaborator Diff Viewer to handle Microsoft Doc and Docx Formats
Many of the users of the Collaborator application in my companywant to use it to review changes made to Microsoft Word documents. However, the document Diff Viewer provided with Collaborator does not have the ability to "understand" the word documents in atheir native format - as it first converts them to text filesand then displays them as PDF files. Thus, the"context" of the changesis lost. For instance, users would like to be able to ignore differences in versions of word documents caused by mere changes to document Header and Footer page numbers, for instance. This type of filtering is not provided by Collaborator's diff viewer, since it treats alldifferences between 2 Microsoft word documents the same (as basic text), whether they come from differences in body text, header text, footer text, table of contents text, etc. Also, is there a way for Collaborator to see/create something similar tothe "Document Map" that is provided in Microsoft word - this would simplify document navigation because then section numbers of the document could be navigated to directly. Also, if the section numbering, header,footers, body text, TOCof the document provided in the open xml format (namely the docx file) were parsed by Collaborator's Diff Viewer, and some functionality created to allow the Diff Viewer to potentially ignore changes in files caused by updates to Table of Contents, Header, Footer text, etc. Currently, this type of filtering of word document changes is not possible in Collaborator's file Diff Viewer. It would be nice if add-ins could be provided that would provide this type of functionality.Create new participant status for send to rework
Currently, when one creates issues and then sends to rework, the participant shows as "Approved" in the Participants module, which is highly confusing to our team. Obviously the review did not approve this review as s/he submitted issues and sent to rework. The participant status should be "Waiting" or some new status "Reviewed", but "Approved" doesn't make sense.Add ability to close chat
In larger reviews, there are sometimes many chat windows. As the review progresses, sometime chats are "done", in that there is nothing more to discuss. These chats now polute the general chat space, and the "accepted" icon is removed if the author uploads another file (often causing the reviewer to look at old chats).Please add an ability to "close" a chat, where the "accepted" icon is kept on that chat line. Perhaps even the (sometimes long) chat bubble could be minimized once closed..
show the full path of a file not just its base name
On the "Diff" screen when viewing the changes for a file, show its full (relative) path, not just its base name at the top of the screen. Sometimes we could have files with the same base name in different directories, or just want to verify the path of a file we're viewing the diff for. This could perhaps be a user setting.Removal of uploaded material of completed reviews
In a regulated environment the compliance with development processes need to be proved. An organization needs to be able to access all artifacts for about 10-15 years depending on the regulation requirements. Therefore version control systems are used to guarantee the access for all versions of saved elements. If there is the requirement to perform reviews prior to check-in of content, the review data like comments, status and review material must be available during the whole time. But the review material should already be stored in the version control system so that it's storage in the Collaborator cache is only needed as long as the review is not completed. Especially Office documents that are converted to images use a lot of space on disk. It would help a lot to have a button like "Remove uploaded material of completed reviews that are completed since xxx date".Allow more action items to be visible
The list of current reviews (or "Action items") only allows just less than 8 items to be visible, no matter what the size of my browser window causing me to scroll if there are a larger number of reviews open. Could we have a splitter bar that could be moved down to make that list view larger and have more items visible without scrolling?Collaborator needs ability for administrators to merge accounts
One fine summer day, "Jane Smith" (sAMAccountName/username == "janesmit") gets married, and changes her name to Jane Johnson. After returning from her honeymoon and going back to work, she logs into her computer and other applications as "janejohn", and all is well. Unfortunately, when she logs into her company's instance of Collaborator (which uses LDAP Auth) as "janejohn", it is as if she has an entirely new account - the old account "janesmit" is separate, and she no longer has access to the reviews associated with her old account ("janesmit"). Collaborator does not act appropriately when accounts are renamed. Jane is understandably not happy, and writes an email to the maintainers of Collaborator at her company, asking for the accounts to be merged. Unfortunately, Collaborator provides no such capability to the administrators of the tool, and Jane is sad. If only SmartBear would add the ability for an administrator to merge accounts, Jane would be happy. :)
Need transparent background on pushpin graphic
This enhancement applies to Collaborator, version 9.4 In document reviews, the new pushpins are being rendered with opaque background. The white background is covering the text under the pin. This makes it difficult to read the document when multiple pins are present. Example: => "wi??n" You can click "Hide Pins", but this hides all of the non-active pins, but not the one you are trying to read at the time. Please make the white background of the pushpin transparent or allow me to update the pushpin graphic file on the server to include transparent background.
Allow Admins to close reviews
Bringing back an old thread - I'd like anyone with Admin privileges to be able to move a review to Completed. We've had several instances where someone has left the company, or is on extended leave, and their roles is required to move a review to completed. On solution is to shuffle roles - while that will allow a review to close, it's "not right". If the author of a document is out sick - yes I can assign the author role to someone else - but now you are fudging the review records in order to get the closure. Later when an auditor comes in we have to give a song and dance as to why the roles in the review don't represent the actual roles the staff members have. We shouldn't need to alter the records to move things forward. The review is more than a record of defects - it's a record of who did what, and we shouldn't need to compromise that to get around a technical glitch.Hide approved files/comments
When you have a review with many files and many comments on each one, it would be nice to only see the files that you still have to review. On the "Review Materials" section, could we have a toggle button that would hide/display the files that the current user has accepted and that haven't changed since? In that same section, could we also have a way to hide all the lines that the current useralready approved (and that didn't have any activity after theapproval)? That way, for files with many comments, youwould very easily find the ones youshould review. This is slightly different from the current highlighting which is already quite good.
Triggers: Remove 255 Character Limit on all input boxes
While attempting to add the path to a script as a first parameter to a trigger and all the needed arguments I noticed that all input boxes are limited to 255 characters. This limit is not allowing me to create complex triggers and offer robust solutions to practical issues for my users. Please remove the 255 character limitation on all input boxes within the "Triggers" page. Here is an HTML code fragment showing the limitation as seen with Internet Explorer Developer Tools. <th>Parameters:</th> <td> <input name="triggerArgs1" class="PlainText x-form-text x-form-field" id="triggerArgs1" onchange="wizardConfirmNavigate = true;" type="text" size="60" maxlength="255" value=""> </td>Provide a way to mark each file as reviewed
On large reviews, it can be hard for a reviewer to track which files they've completed reviewing, if there are defects or discussions still ongoing. In that case, you don't want to mark the file as accepted, so it would be nice if there was a "Review completed for this version" button or flag.
Make it clear when a "restricted" file type cannot be uploaded
When a user attempts to upload a file that is in the "restricted file types" list (a .SH file for example), Collaborator does not indicate to the user that the file was blocked, causing confusion. The Collaborator server should indicate to the user that some of the files were blocked because they are on the restricted file list.Provide a way to specify unique files in a review be treated as versions of the same file.
Currently when developers upload different versions of the same files using the eclipse plugin the files are identified based partlyon their relative paths. This becomes a problem when these paths differ between uploads. This can occur for various reasons (like when release version information is included in the path) and cause files to be treated asunique files rather than new versions of the same file. It would be very helpful to have a way to tell Collaborator that specified separatefiles in a review are actually the same file and should betreated as a new version of the file.Review configuration management or activity history display
One of our users re-opened a review to add a new reviewer. They discovered the previous review comments from other reviewers disappeared after that. This makes them very uncomfortable about their data and how they can have sufficient traceability information in case there is an audit. We recommend the following ideas for consideration: 1. Provide an option for users to keep existing data when a review is re-opened. 2. Add an option to allow automatic review export (such as PDF) when a review is closed and list all exports in the review as history. Admin can choose a repository such as CMS or artifact management system for PDF storage. 3. Save review as code to a git repository so users can see the changes and can revert back to certain stage if any issue occurs. Since it is in git, all activities can be recorded and can be traced. There might be other possible solutions. The goal is to keep full traceability in the system. Thanks.OIDC providers
OIDC is much simpler to set up than SAML and having support for other OIDC providers besides GitHub and Atlassian would be beneficial. Enterprises that have their own internal OIDC provider and don't (or cannot) use GitHub or Atlassian Crowd would benefit from a simpler A&A configuration."Confirm to cancel comment" dialog wording is awkward and unclear.
If I write a comment on a review and later want to delete it, I click the Delete button to do so. The message which then appears looks like the image below: So I have to click Confirm if I want to cancel, and Cancel if I want to cancel the cancellation; i.e. I don't want to cancel the comment. I think. I think it would be a lot clearer if it used the word "Delete" instead of "Cancel", so could say "Are you sure you want to delete this comment?", and had Yes/No buttons, such that Yes deletes the comment, and No doesn't.Make Collaborator work with LabView
Currently doing Peer Reviews with LabView does not work. The users would like to be able to put comments on the LabView diagrams. Saving each file to pdf to be able to comment on each is not a great solution. There can be many files and files are coordinated with each other.Allow removal of files from an active review
Collaborator is configured such that once any defect has been found in any file of a review, then no files in that review can be removed. Your only option is to delete the review and make a new review. This has been proved to be an inconvenience. We’ve had people add files to a review they should not have. We’re human – it’s going to happen. There is currently no way to remove those files from an active review; and deleting the whole review would lose defects found on files we do want to be reviewed. SB support says this is expected behavior, but I think we users would benefit if this were allowed. (It could be customizable via Roles to allow at all, or limit to certain roles).Add setting to allow users to UNCANCEL Reviews
Submitted on behalf ofMicrosemi (Formerly PMC-Sierra) The motivation for us stems from the cause that usually even project admins have to contact system admins to uncancel a review. It'd be great if there was a feature enhancement for group admins to be able to uncancel a review. Maybe add a new setting that will allow, "Everyone | Group admins | Author | Creator", to UNCANCEL reviews.Support MariaDB on Linux
Debian and Ubuntu Linux at least now ship MariaDB as the default instead of MySQL. I've recently installed v11.3 on Debian 9.5 (Stretch) with MariaDB v10.1 and it seems to work correctly, but it would be nice for the installation instructions to indicate that MariaDB is a supported database.Export documents with pins from the diffviewer to the review detailed report in the PDF format.
Posting an idea on behalf ofEUCHNER GmbH + Co. KG: Which would be very helpful for us if we could download the pins that are superimposed in the PDF as a file. Because in the report the positions are delivered but not transferable into the document without seeing the pins in the document. Since we also have a graphical part in the reviewed document, it's already necessary from our point of view to at least determine where these pins are to be assigned.Allow reviewers to change the "Waiting" state when the review is in the Rework phase
Submitting the RFE on behalf ofJames Wagner fromL-3 Technologies, CSG: Allow reviewers to change what they are waiting for, when the review is in the Rework phase. For example, a reviewer wants to become Active only when the File Activity occurs instead of Any activity.Edit / completely delete your own comments and defects
I want to be able toedit or completely delete (with no trace) comments and defects I have added. Strikout is not a good alternative; it wastes everyone's time to look at something that should have been deleted. Theability to edit or cleanly delete previously enteredtext is near-universal in systems that store user-entered text, andthere are many good reasons for this. In addition to those universally applicable reasons, the CCinterface makes it easy toattach a comment or defect to the wrong line,. Further, the basic model of file-at-a-time reviewing with no global search or symbol lookup makes it difficult to review large or multi-file changes. When reviewing such changes, Ioften make comments that become moot when later functions or files are examined. I'mthen reduced to either entering a later "never mind" comment (strikeout is only a slight improvement, because mostauthorsarestill going to waste time reding it)and/oreffectively implementing my own "undo" by keeping all my comments and defects in a separate text file until I'm completely done, then going back in a second pass and actually entering them.Allow "messages from the administrator" to be accepted and hidden to increase vertical space
We use the "Message from the administrator" feature to show important information to users about the type of data they can use Collaborator for, however in v11.3.11301 the message is always present at the top of the screen. There is no way for a user to hide the message and it consumes valuable screen real-estate. Many of our users review portrait format documents on landscape screens and so being able to hide or move anything that prevents the use of the full vertical size of the monitor would bebeneficial. Please provide an option for users to be able to read, accept and hide the message upon each login. Better still, provide an option to do that and also to hide/move/shrink the horizontal menu bars. Thanks!End Collaborator's use of Adobe Flash
Collaborator (and all Web-based tools, really) should retire any use of Adobe Flash. The same functionality is now available natively in standards-compliant HTML5 browsers, which are commonplace at this time. Flash Player is a never-ending source of security issues, causes grief for IT administrators, and is constantly pining for updates. If it weren't for Collaborator, I could remove the flash plugin from my system entirely and enjoy improved security.Add automatic license release based solely on inactivity
Hello, I would like to see license recovery (automated release) based solely on inactivity. Specifically without regard to what tabs are open or anything else. We have staff that multi-task and it's easy to sit on a license. Then we end up spamming emails to notify staff to log out. This is silly. With some customer defined threshold (maybe 4 hours) we can assume the user is MIA and recover the license. This seems like a standard feature in other shared license tools like this. Was surprised this wasn't already implemented.Allow reviewers to quickly filter the file list by file type
Hello, Our Dev team can create some reviews containing a lot ofvarious files (eg. *.cs, *.xml, *.csproj, *.config...). When reviewing the files under the 'Review Materials' section, we would like to filterthe files by their extension types so that we can focus on the most important changes. For instance, we can have just a few critical changes located under some .cs files and many unimportant changesin our .csproj files. In such cases, we would like to see at one glance the modified .cs files. Thanks ThomasImprove report management/Save Reports
When you generate a report in the WebUI, you can print it, and you can copy the link to include in your bookmarks, email etc. It would be nice if I could save these reports within the WebUI itself. They would be accessible from any location where you executed the WebUI, and possibly be available for other users to run. On the basic side, users could have a ‘my reports’ section where saved reports could live. On the complex side, reports could be public/private (checkbox) and maybe restricted by group or public. Reports are such a powerful tool for data extraction and analysis, yet managing them within the UI could be so much more efficient. (I thought I had submitted this previously but I can’t find it in the forum…)User sync with AD group
Hi, the authentication via LDAP is a nice feature to organize the user registration in a world-wide environment by use of several AD groups that can be administered business-unit-specific. Unfortunately the user is not known in Collaborator until his/her first log in. This results in three steps: 1. Adding to AD group 2. User must log in 3. Project admin can add user to group Each step results in a latency and communication overhead between the admin and the user. It would be great to have a button in Collaborator's user management panel like "sync with configured AD group xy" (similar to RTC for example).Git Repository Name on review with multiple git repository.
When you add several changes from git via GUI client to one review there is no way to understand which repository the file belongs to. For example(screen in attache), if several commits contain files with the same name, you can only understand which repository they refer to using a hash. The screenshot shows an example when all 3 files with the same name refer to different repositories. Adding the name of the repository, and not just the file with changes, would help us a lot. Thanks for attention!Show state as "Waiting (was approved)" or similar
It's annoying to get thrown out of Approval in several cases; but some cases are valid. Either way, what can be further annoying is not having Code Collaborator indicate any information in the code review webpage on whether or not reviewershad previously been in the Approval state. It would be nice, if the State column, indicated in some way, that users (reviewers/observers/whatever) had previously been in an Approved state but now are not. With so many code reviews going on, it's easy to second-guess yourself on "didn't I approve this already"? And having the tool help keep oneself up-to-date on such matters would be handy. Also, as an Author, it'd be nice to see the same information; as that may help lead the author to know which subset of reviewers really needs to pay more attention to the review (because perhaps thereviewer's that need to re-approve in this case were and are actively and responsively enganged with the review, but some subset of other reviewers are behind needing to get to it still).
Collaborator Feature Requests
481 Posts
