Allow a way to gave Group and Template specified with GIT integration
I have a team working on Gitlab integration with Colalborator. When merge requests are made on the GIT side, a Collaborator review is automatically created. Unfortunately, the Group and Templateis selected somewhat randomly. According to customer service they are "The last Group and Templated that the merge author happened to use". Often this is the wrong choice. WHen we change them by hand we then lose all the other auto filled data in the review. Give how well the GIT / Collaborator integration is set up, it would be nice to have a way to specify Group and Template to use for the review.
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).Do not remove Approval when Poked (both individual Pokes and via Poke Everyone)
If a Reviewer (or Observer) is in theApproval state, then it is totally unnecessary, and indeed quite annoying and time-wasting, to have that reviewertaken out of Approval uponthat reviewer being poked. It would be much better, if Poking a user (via individual Poke or via Poking Everyone) left users in their state ofApproval. This would allievate issues such as: 1) Author clicks "Poke Everyone" (perhaps because several reviewers need to look at the review), but the unintended consequence is thatit canthrowacouple other reviewers out of Approval (thus wasting their time, because nothing else changed up to that point that would have otherwise thrown them out of Approval). Sure, the author could have individually poke only the necessary subset of users, but that less desirable alternative basicallyleavesthe "Poke Everyone" button mostly useless. 2) Similarly, an Author may accidentaly poke a specific user; maybe missed the State column's claim that the user was in Approval and then miss-poked theuser. Either way, it's the same downsides as above, but with no alternative via Code Collab. In general, Code Collaborator has several annoying and time-wasting cases of throwing reviewers out of approval; this is one of them; please do fix! Thanks :-)
Ability to disable automatic changes of review progress on Action Items list
Our workflow is such that we want to clearly define when control of a review moves to a different participant. For example, I create a review and annotate it, and then move it to the inspect phase. The review progress then appears in my action items list (and on the system tray window) as "Waiting for comments". However, as soon as the reviewer makes their first comment, it switches back to Perform, which is a nuisance since frequently the reviewer is still working on the review - they may find that a later file answers a question they'd asked, so they go back and delete an earlier comment, or edit one. The result is that I start responding to a comment which then gets updated or deleted by the reviewer, who isn't expecting me to have resumed work on the review since they haven't yet clicked "Wait". It would be nice to have an option whereby Collaborator will leave the review progress as it is until the "Active" participant(s) click "Wait" to wait for further activity. This way, the reviewer can add/edit/delete their comments, approve files etc until they're happy that it's ready to pass back to the author, and only then have the author notified that it's ready for them again. Similarly, when the author then responds to the comments, the same functionality would prevent the reviewer from being asked to respond to the comments until the author had finished writing them. This would not need to prevent participants from participating at any time, as it is very useful to have this ability - it would just prevent one person's changes from causing other participants to be notified and the review progress on their action lists to change.Add Perforce integration to Collaborator Visual Studio plugin
Submitting a feature request on behalf of Symantec Corp: There is no possibility to add a Perforce SCM repository in Collaborator Visual Studio plugin at this moment. The idea is to add Perforce SCM support to Collaborator Visual Studio plugin to make it possible.
Synchronisation in Next button for Review material
When i want to go from one page to the next for a review material have to press the NEXT buttons. It means that when I go from page 1 to page 2 I have to press once the next button for the document from left and then the button NEXT for the document from right. I would like to have this switch from one page to another synchronized for both documents and this synchronization to be activated with a "tick".
Coloring scheme
The coloring scheme of the defect status does not help in getting a clear overview on where you are in the processing of defects. This is due the use of only bright colors that draws attention for everything; even for defects that are already processed (green). The defect list is a Christmas tree. I have seen a lot of complaints fromusers about the coloring scheme that Collaboraotuses for a long time so apparently there is a philosophy behind it. Please allow a user to configure his own coloring scheme (and save it permanently).
Customisable initials or ability to specify short username per user
We have some users with the same initials when using two initials, so have enabled the 3 initials. With three initials, it displays the second letter of the user's first name, but it would be useful to actually display a middle initial. Therefore, could we have a per user field that allows custom initials to be entered, or in fact allows shortened tags per user to be used inside discussions in reviews?
Clone / Copy Review
For iterative projects, there will often be a review created for the same work product at each iteration, and typically the general details and participant list don't change much between reviews. Would be great to be able to clone the general details of the previously completed review (review title, participant list, template, custom fields, etc), then all a user would have to do is verify the copied review details are correct, upload the new file, and click begin review.
Allow reviewer to make private "Comments"/notes or add bookmarks for returning to review later
Often when performing a large code or document review it is nessessary to put it down and pick it back up many times. It would be extremely helpful if the tool had a mechanism to bookmark places to come back to within specific files and even to allow the reviewer to take private notes to help them remember what they were thinking about when they had to walk away from the review.Allow to pre-fill the 'Before' and 'After' branches in Code Collaborator Client
Hello, The Collaborator Enterprise Client's "Add Git Diffs to Review" modal window allows to specify Diffs to review by selecting the Before branch and After branch. We can browse thru existing branches thanks to the drop-down lists (see attached snapshot), but this can quickly become inconvenientwhen the number of branches increases.Thereare also some really irritating cases : When you add Git Diffs to existing reviews and have toselect the same branches over and over again. Solution > Persist the latest selected branches for a given existing review and user and allow to have the branches pre-filled When your DevOps guidelines require you to create reviews against a 'Develop' branch systematically. Therefore, you always have to set the 'Before' branch on this 'Develop' branch. Solution > Configure a default 'Before' branch so that it can automatically be picked up for new reviews. Thanks ThomasAdd ability to delete reviews for record retention (regulatory) requirements
For regulatory purposes, we must follow record retention requirements. This means we must delete code reviews older than 5 years old (note: this period of time may vary from company to company or industry to industry). In Collaborator, there is not a way to delete code reviews, unless they are in the planning stage. Therefore, we are not in compliance with this requirement. Request an administrative feature be added to Collaborator that either: Provides an on-demand capability which enables an admin to go in and push a button (with a confirmation window), to delete all code reviews older than x years old, where the users is able to select the number of years Enables an admin to set a retention schedule (to select the number of years), and Collaborator would then on a weekly or monthly basis automatically delete any reviews older than the selected time period automatically, without user intervention. Either method should delete all code reviews in both the database and the flat files on the server in content cache. I actually prefer method (b), but wanted to suggest (a) also, for whatever is possible to help us be in compliance with retention requirements.
Display the current file number out of the total number of files in the review
When I perform a code review I mostly navigate from file to file without going back to the main view. It would be nice to show what the current file number is of the total number of files somewhere in the file view. I personally like to the left or right of the filename aligned to the edge. Just something as simple asFile 4 of 27would be fine.
Please provide a detailed report for a review that contains timestamps of state changes.
We would like to do some metrics around how long a review stays in each state. The information to do that does not seem to be available anywhere. Please provide a detailed history report that shows all changes to a specific record. This would also be helpful in debugging issues.Edit Participant Fields for Other Users
We would like to be able to use participant custom fields to keep track of process roles for our participants (for example, Jane is the Software Tester and Mark is a Mentor, and Julie is the Auditor). Right now because these fields cannot be set by the person setting up the review, it puts the onus on each participant to log on and change their field. It would be great to allow the person setting up the record to enter this type of participant information which would be more efficient and less error prone than the current workflow supported by Collaborator.Silent Install of Collaborator Server
Is it possible to enable and support the automated install and configuration of the Collaborator server? There are some features with potential (-c, -q, -varfile) but these are very basic (database and ldap config only) and are not functional when attempting an unattended install on a new server. It would be neat if the server could be stood up without a licence or at least ship with an "admin only" (no login) access so that the server can be installed with LDAP/AD and database integration configured from a response file and potentially configure with API / REST interface. In our case the servers do not have internet access so this feature will need to accommodate that fact, in particular I would expect the request and install of the license to be a manual step conducted some time after the install and database and LDAP/AD configuration has completed.Possibility to mark a file as Accepted "As is"
Hi, During our review workflow (especially code reviews), reviewers often review a file and have no defect to formulate for this file. We would like to mark this file as "Accepted" or "Validated". This would mean this file does not has to be reviewed anymore in this review. This "Accepted" state should be reversible (clicking again on the button would invalidate the Accepted state) and this state has to be exported in reports just as defects. This way, by exporting review data, we would keep as a proof the fact that this file has been reviewed and that no defect has been found for it. RegardsCan notification emails be collected into a digest form?
Several of our users complain about the volume of emails that they receive from Collaborator even when the setting is adjusted to minimal. Is it possible to collect the notifications in a different format such as a single digest email instead of an email per review? (e.g. You are a participant in X reviews which are past due. You have Y stalled reviews currently.)Full audit history of a given review
One thing that would be good to have in reporting is the ability to get the full audit history of a given review. Currently the review report only gives you the current status and history of defects and attachments I believe. For instance, recently we had a case where a review was created, then cancelled and re-opened multiple times, before being cancelled again. The built-in report only shows the last status of cancelled, but also doesn't say who cancelled it. Having looked at the review event table, the actions could not be linked to the user at all. The only other way to do this is currently to check the notifications table, if that is not being archived/cleaned up. That or set up a custom notification to populate a table. But this would be good to have built-in.Add a better word wrap mechanism to the Chat window.
Text in the chat window will cut words in half while wrapping the text, making chat text hard to read. (screen shot attached). Words should wrap at a space break, rather than in the middle of words. This would make read ing test a lot easier wit hout the reader havi ng to re-interpret all th e broken words :)
AWS Code Commit Support
Howdy, Please add Code Collaborator support for AWS Code Commit repository integrations to the web client. Example of this current functionality can be found here: https://support.smartbear.com/collaborator/docs/source-control/git.html https://support.smartbear.com/collaborator/docs/source-control/repo-hosting/index.html In the same way that Github, Bitbucket, and Azure can easily be integrated to the Collaborator, I would like for this process to also function with AWS Code Commit Repos. I may currently use Code Collab and AWS Code Commit via the client gui and local changes, but I would also like to have direct repo integration like the hosted repos do. Thanks.Reply to individual chats / defects
If several users add defects or chat messages to a specific part of a document (or in the "overall" section found in the document or main review page), someone responding has no way of picking the chat or finding that they are responding to. Similar to an "Instant Message" environment, it makes it difficult for someone coming in later to go through & figure out the individual threads of conversation. It would be great if a user could click on a chat or finding, and click a 'reply' button which would allow the UI to show the reply directly below the chat / defect that was previously entered.Detailed report extracting review note and associated code line(s)
We are investigating to which extent it would be possible to automate reviews partly by using AI. To that end we need an ability to extract (across a collection of reviews) review comments and the associated code line(s). The output could for example be in an Excel file. We have not been able to find this ability in the standard reporting tool, but we believe that this feature would also be usable in other use cases where you would like to analyse your reviews and find patterns.Show logged in user names when the limit exceeds Licenses Limit
It has been observed that once the user logins to the Collaborator and all the floating user licenses has been consumed he is not shown the initials (login names) of all users that are already logged into the system. Please let us know how we can enable this service or if this is known issue from your side as we need this service of letting the user who's exceed the license toknows which all users are already logged into the system.Additional notification schemes
Additional notification schemes that can be set by user is requested. Even "minimal" is too much for some people, and they would like "minimal minimal". What specifically has been requested is to receive email when the review changes state only. Others may have different ideas when they want to receive emails.Review sent to rework displayed as requiring attention
As a reviewer, if I send a review to rework, it then is displayed with the status "Waiting for defect rework" with a yellow arrow. However, if the author then comes back with some comments, even if I mark them as read, the review is now displayedwith the status "Rework defects" and is displayed with a red arrow indicating that it requires my attention. Previously there was an option to put it back into the waiting state, but now there is no option. The review sits in my list as if it needs my attention. When the rework is actually done and there are new files uploaded it won't be obvious.Allow separating typos/spelling/grammar errors from higher-level feedback
When reviewing a submission (especially documents), it would be very useful to be able to report typos, spelling and grammar errors separately from more important higher-level feedback. Likely with buttons that would allow showing/hiding either type independently. We've seen that people tend to not flag such small (but still correctable!) issues otherwise, because they don't want to take attention away from the big-picture feedback, drowning it out with the small things.Collapse folders and Personal Notes
Hi, So I don't know if these already exist or will be feature requests. Collapse folder -Every once in a while we have a situation where we have to deal with rather large code reviews. In this situation it would be nice to be able to collapse folders in the Review materials section so you don't have to keep scrolling a lot back and forth. Makes the code reviews a lot less intimidating too. Personal Note - Is there a way to write notes to yourself when doing code reviews? There have been several times when I have wanted to write a note to myself saying "Check X again after checking Y file" or something along those lines. So when I revisit the old file I will remember to do this. Now I don't want these personal doodles to appear to everyone and create unnecessary clutter, so it would be nice to have this as an option. Right now I just open a text editor and leave notes there but it's more convenient to leave notes at the location you want, think Kindle notes. Both are just nice to have kind of features but would reach help in the user experience if it were available.Mention and Notify User From Review Comment
I would like a way to indicate to another Code Collaborator user that a comment I've made requires their input and notify them specifically about that action item. In several tools including Jira, Azure DevOps, GitHub, GitLab, and others (including this form, apparently), you can type "@[user name]" where "[user name]" is the name or nickname of another user and that user will be directly notified that they have been mentioned in a comment. The use case I have for this is to expedite communication in conversational comment threads. Sometimes I may have an idea for a change or issue in a review, but I want feedback from another user with relevant experience, so I would mention them to indicate I'd like their input. Currently, I can poke the user, but then they don't have any context for why they've been notified. Ideally, a mention system would search based on display names since our SSO setup requires login names that look like random text. An autofill system would make using this feature much easier. Additionally, having some marker on the website that indicates where you've been mentioned would be useful.ITAR/Export Control
Would like the ability to identify and restrict access to Reviews containing Export/ITAR restricted data. Recommend having the option to identify a Group as ITAR restricted or non-ITAR, which would then activate a corresponding field for each user in the group. User accounts should also allow this property to be selected independently from the group. An "Export Restriction" field would get added to Reviews and when that field has "ITAR" selected, it prevents any users with the non-ITAR property on their account from accessing the review.We need a way to change the defaulted values
When I go to the "display" screen, it is defaulted to "page Width." I want it to default to "full Page." I have to change it every time I go into the document. Is there a way to change the default value? Another example is when you go to the details page of a review. the output defaults to "hide Comments." I want to change it to "Show all Comments." It would be nice if there was an admin capability to change defaults based on my preferences, not SmartBears.Bookmark where I was in a review document
When reviewing a document, I often have to leave the review and come back later. MS Word has a new feature, when you open a document it opens to page one, but puts a little flag up saying ‘you were on this other page when you last opened this document – click here to snap to where you were’. This would be a very handy feature in Collaborator. Right now I have to write down what page I left off on – a bit of a low-tech solution.Keep a log of changes to the review itself.
Currently, detailed reports do not keep track of changes to the reviews themselves. After you create (begin) a review, changes such as adding or removing attendees, changing review title/description/custom fields are not recorded anywhere. For accounting and Quality purposes, having a log of review attribute changes is helpful to have around.Need Reference documents in a review
While performing inspections, you often need to reference other materials. Other source code files, Requirements and Design documents, etc. Currently Collaborator has no way to include these as part of a review. If you upload these reference documents, they become part of the review. The only other option is to create a custom review field and use the text field to tell people where to find the reference material. (We ended up zipping up reference material, checking it into SCM, and putting a link to the zip file in this custom text field. It would be nice to have a more elegant solution to include reference materials in with a particular review. Ideally, a way to upload these files but not make them part of the review itself.Allow reviewers to ignore rebased files that are not part of the review (UCM)
One of my co-workers had a long-running review open, and ended up rebasing his local changes several times (on top of remote changes performed by others in the stream). This caused unrelated changes (the code brought in as part of the rebase) to show up in the review. Reviewers were not sure which changes to comment on. If UCM-based reviews provided an option to filter out code that's part of the rebase, and only show changes made by the author, the reviewer experience would be much easier.Make your site and support easier to find and navigate.
I find it VERY HARD to find information on your site. For example, I have spent the last 15 minutes looking for the page that has all the versions and what was fixed in each. I can't find that, but I run into this: The link to the forum where release notifications are supposed to be posted -- the last entry there was 1.5 years ago. I had the link, but had to C/P something else and lost it. But it was referenced in a number of places. So I want to submit a case on this. Can't figure out how to do that. There was a chat thingy that was bugging me to talk to a live salesperson, and there was an option there to submit a case, but as soon as I clicked it, it went away. Gosh, I hope you guys are not obfuscating customer service to make us go away. Maybe you need to get someone not familiar with this site to walk it for different scenarios.Disable old user automatically/reclaim license after X days/months based on 'Last Activity'
Users login and create their own account butthe Collaborator IT support teamhas to clean up old users with an 'Active' license quarterly or monthly depending on the hiring phase we are in. In a largely distributed IT shop, a user admin team would be the team to provision. It would be great if the system could disable Normal Users if their 'Last Activity' was over X days/months. Preferably by months, like 3 months (or convert to a day value). Administrator users would be exempt from the disable process. Alternatively,being able to provision or un-provision using an AD group would be much more preferable but above would solve a provisioning issue we currently are faced with.Warning when a reviewer already has to many items to review
Submitting on behalf ofIan McGhee: We have an issue where some developers get overloaded with reviews which then slows down the review process. could you add a feature so a warning is displayed if a reviewer has too many reviews already assigned to them. ideally making the number of reviews that trigger the warning to be configurable. Also could you allow a user to set up a warning so if they are unable to due reviews they can warn people. so they dont get stuck waitingSyntax Highlighting Export/Import per-language
As of Collaborator 11.0.11000, syntax highlighting can be added for previously unsupported languages and existing languages can be modified. It's a lot of work to figure out all the regexes for the different things that should be matched though, so it would useful if the community could share their work with each other on languages that aren't yet supported (e.g. Makefiles). Add the ability to import/export a single language syntax highlighting configuration from the syntax highlighting screen in the Administrative Settings so the whole installation's configuration doesn't need to be exported and cut to share, and exported, modified, and re-imported to use new syntax highlighting settings.Import Collaborator reviewfrom a dfferent server
Hi, We use Collaborator to review data (i) internally, (ii) with customers and (iii) with suppliers. All are set up as separate systems due to security access, data restrictions, etc It would be fantastic to be able to export a review from one server and import it into another, for example (and this is what we want to use it for) transfer the review from the internal server to the supplier server.
Collaborator Feature Requests
480 Posts
