Show deleted Clearcase files in the review materials as the deleted revisions.
Submitting the RFE on behalf of Johann Glaser from Infineon Technologies AG-verification: We are facing trouble adding ClearCase files to Collaborator. The specific file has been deleted, and we want to add it so that the reviewers see that it is gone.Fyodor_A6 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)New Idea641Views1like0Comments- ssmorgan9 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea836Views2likes0Comments
Allow anyone to re-open a closed review by clicking a link, NOT by adding a comment
Users are complaining about this setting: Allow Reopening Completed Reviews Once a review has completed, should participants be allowed to re-open the review just by making an additional comment? If not allowed, an administrator is still able to re-open a review by clicking a link. They want to be able to comment on a Closed review without Re-opening it, but also be able to Re-open reviews without an Administrator. One way would be to make the re-open link mentioned above available to all - maybe add a separate setting to enable that...jkleppinger6 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea1.2KViews1like0CommentsDetail Review Report should list at least base and final commit/revision IDs
Submitting on behalf of Cristian Davila: Currently, the materials section of the Detailed Review Report only shows the first upload and any subsequent uploads, but excludes the revision / commit ID of the first "before" revision that was included with the original upload. Including that would make the report more comprehensive for auditing purposes. Ex. - create review on rev 10 -> review contains rev 10, and 9 for comparison - generate review details report -> materials section lists just rev 10, should include 9OlegB6 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)New Idea603Views1like0Comments- ssmorgan6 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea1.3KViews1like1Comment
Render markup/markdown documents for review
Submitting on behalf ofDamian Sanchez: It might be interesting to add markup/markdown support for reviewing these kinds of documents. The tool would render them but rely on the underlying plain text for diffingOlegB6 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)New Idea637Views1like0CommentsCollaborator with redmine integration
We would like to see if the collaborator can have integration with Redmine issue tracking system. While this was not our primary concern, but it would be really nice to see that the issue tracking and review system working hand in hand.roshkj6 years agoOccasional Visitor999Views1like0CommentsAdd more details to system tray notifier tooltip / icon
The system tray application is very handy; one small improvement could be made with the tooltip - currently the toolltip says "you have X action items", which really just translates to the number of open reviews you are participating in, but doesn't let you know at a glance how many reviews require your attention (see below). A more useful tooltip would be something like"Xopenreviews, Y need your attention (Z overdue)", where X would be the number of open reviews you are participating in, Y would be the number of reviews where you are not currently in waiting / approved status, and Z would be the number of reviews that need your attention, and are past the review's configured deadline date. Correspondingly, it would also be nice if the system tray icon changed to reflect various status, for example a green indicatorcouldindicate0 reviews requiring your attention, yellow indicating 1+ reviews requiring your attention, and red indicating1+ reviews requiring your attention that are overdue.MrDubya9 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.3KViews2likes0CommentsChange Line Number that a Comment Refers To
When we have rteviews with lots of comments and multiple uploads, the original line number that a discussion starts on can get very off very quickly. It would be helpful if either the original commenter or the author could change the line number that a discussion refers to so comments still reference the correct area of the code.aksassu7 years agoMemberNew Idea1.9KViews2likes3CommentsAdd Ability to Choose File Upload Order
We frequently have code changes that effect a few dozen files, but the bulk of the relevent code changes are only in 2 or 3 of those files. It would be helpful to manually choose the display order of the files to make it more obvious what reviewers should focus on.aksassu9 years agoMemberNew Idea2.7KViews2likes1CommentCustom Fields desperately need some type of organizational ability
Custom Fields desperately need some type of organizational ability when large number of groups use Collaborator Conflicts between group easily emerge and it is very difficult to manage custom field when you have 100s of them. For example take a custom field named: Product. Group A may want to have a different drop down set for than Group B or C or D or E. Moving items up and down in the list to get order correct for a newly created field is very cumbersome in a big list when it is created at the bottom of th list, and the page updates and loses posititional information everytime you move an item up or down (no drag and drop). Extremely difficult to know which groups are using which custom fields. It would be a huge improvement to have custom fields organized or filtered in some fashion (only show me custom fields used by template XYZ. or only custom fields used by multiple templates.) Perhaps an additional group field could select whether each custom field was available to all groups or just specific ones.ssmorgan9 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea1.2KViews2likes0CommentsChange resolution of PDF files uploaded for reviews
Users should be allowed to change, or at least increase, the resolution of PDF files that are uploaded to a review. When we were using PrintToReview, wehad the ability to change the resolution of PDF files that we uploaded for review. This was useful when the default resolution was not easy (or sometimes impossible) to read. Now that PrintToReview has been made obsolete, we are no longer able to change the PDF file resolution when uploading the file, and this has caused us to reverto to manual reviews for some of our documents.chris_dominguez9 years agoNew ContributorAccepted for Discussion5.7KViews2likes1CommentTime Stamped History of activity
I would like a timestamped history of activity on each review. Then I could easily answer questions like, * Did Joe approve the review before or after Ed's comments? * How long ago did Dave approve the review? * Did Bob update the code after Susan approved?SAlexander_SG8 years agoNew ContributorCommunity Feedback Requested11KViews2likes7CommentsMake automatic generation of unread "Marked review action fixed:" comments a configurable option.
If we want to configure the roles so that all comments must be read befor the review can be closed then the automatic generation of unread "Marked review action fixed:" comments forces another time-wasting back-and-forth between the author and reviewer before the review can be closed. It would be great if the "Marked review action fixed:" comments could be generated as being already read or alternatively not included as unread comments when determining whether the review can be completed or not. The sequence of events that causes the scenarioare as follows (with theroles configured to require reading all comments): 1) Reviewer creates an action item in a review. 2) Author addresses action item and uploads a new file. 3) Reviewer marks the action item as fixed and in doing so a "Marked review action fixed:" comment is automatically added to the review. The review is effectively finished at this point but the reviewer is unable to approve the review because there is an unread comment (the "Marked review action fixed:" comment) that the author needs to first mark as read. This is the problem. 4) Needlessly the author goes must now go back and load the review to mark all of the "review action fixed" comments as read. If there are a lot of files in the review this has to be done manually for each file. Also, if there happen to be additional comments left by the reviewer along-side the "Marked review action fixed:" messages then the author needs to sort through all of the useless "review action fixed" comments to try and find the useful comments. 5) The reviewer now needs to go back and open the review to do nothing more than click the Approve button which could have been done in step 3 if the "Marked review action fixed:" comments weren't automatically generated and marked as unread and weren't preventing the review from being closed. For our use-case this extra step is both a nuissance and a waste of time and therefore we cannot configure the roles to read all comments even though we would prefer to have the roles configured that way.chriswm9 years agoRegular VisitorAccepted for Discussion6.1KViews2likes2CommentsProvide a way to filter by Review Custom Fields in Defect reports
I have a Reveiw Custom Field named Project. I would like a Customizable Defect Report where I can filter using the Project field. I do not want to use Groups to achieve this (as was suggested by a sales representative).pnoffke9 years agoMemberNew Idea5KViews2likes1CommentLog all activities of users and admins in Collaborator
In a Large enterprise there will be multiple admins. To track who has done what, Admin should be able to get the log of all users activities. Like, Disabling and Enabling review templates, Disabling and enabling users or adding users etc. In simple terms a log should be generated for every activity happens in Collaborator through all the ways. ex: GUI, API, Collab client, Thirdpart clients, Commands etc.samarnat6 years agoRegular Visitor979Views1like0CommentsReview Defects: Shorten text removing day of week or shorten date to xx/xx, today, 2 mins ago, etc.
Could we shorten the text in the UI defect to possibly remove day of the week or shorten date to xx/xx? Or like 2 hrs ago or today, yesterday, 2 mins ago.If we shorten the date, it might make this pane more readable, particularly when it carries over to a new line due to a long name, etc.MGergely9 years agoStaffPostponed5.5KViews2likes1CommentInclude All Details in Detailed Report
Currently several pieces of data that could be helpul for auditing purposes are not provided in the review detailed report. This includes: The review template The current approval status for each of the participants (EDIT: I see from the release notes that this is included in Collaborator v9, thanks!). Other items? This information may be provided in other views,however it would be handy to have this information in the detailed report to avoid switching back & forth between different views to get a complete picture.MrDubya10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.7KViews2likes0CommentsChecklist improvement - 3
Leave the checklist items in the order in which they were entered. Why are they resorted alphabetically? This causes more work when creating the checklist because you have to "trick" Collaborator into keeping your preferred order by adding a qualifier to each item. Adding a number does not necessarily preserve order since numbers are sorted alphabetically.scline10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.3KViews2likes0CommentsMore email notification options
In supporting Code Collaborator for our organization, I have many users request both more emails and (most frequently) less emails from reviews. Ideally, this would mean more options in a user's profile settings, but they could also be set in review templates. Thanks, Kellykcorbin8 years agoOccasional VisitorCommunity Feedback Requested7.3KViews2likes3CommentsSelect Range of Text in Documents
For document reviews, not having the ability to select a range of text is a fairly large issue for some of our groups, particularly when reviewing user documentation. At a minimum would be good to draw a square around the area of the document in question.MrDubya10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.4KViews2likes0CommentsPreserve Excel Formatting in Diff Viewer
In many (or most) cases our users want to include cell formatting when reviewing Excel spreadsheets, because they become fairly unreadable with the formatting stripped out in the diff viewer. This limitation means that either: The author has to format the spreadsheet nicely for printing and save as PDF or use print to review, which can be a lot of effort, particularly when there are multiple sheets. The reviewer has to download the file in Excel, and go back and forth between Excel and the collaborator web page to log comments. Because the Excel sheet is unformatted, and it's extra work to find the specific cell, the comments will tend to be logged in the 'general chat' area of the review.MrDubya7 years agoOccasional ContributorImplemented6.4KViews2likes2CommentsCustom Notifications for Each Review Template
Currently notification emails are sent with the same text no matter what review template is being used. Because of this, I am finding that we need to put an explanation in the body of the notification (for example, "if this is for a workshop, you need to do this:" or "if this for a workshop, please disregard this email") which is often overlooked. Based on the review template (formal inspection, informal review, etc) we would want the text of the notification to change, and sometimes we may not want to send a notification at all for certain events.MrDubya10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.2KViews2likes0CommentsGUI Select File according to extensions
In collaborator GUI Client, could you add choose files in a folder or subfolders according to file extensions. For example, choose *.py files in a folder and its subfolders to review. 1- It can be filter that shows all the files recursively based on file extension. Filter should be modifiable. 2- It can be regular expression field to search files or folders recursively and then select.rgundogmus6 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea648Views1like0CommentsManaging Custom Fields in a large organization need improvement
Moving new items around is cumbersome with the current CollaboratorUI. Being able to Move an item up/down multiple times, or drag and drop it to a new position would be very helpful. However, the clutter with irrelevant fields of other groups using collaborator makes management very cumbersome. A filter showing only items used by a group (or particular templates) would be helpful. A better idea is allowing the custom fields to be assigned to a group, then I can select the group of custom fields I need to modify. Right down when a company as a large number of fields created, it becomes very difficult to maintain because it is not organized, and it difficult to position new fields if they need to move far away from the bottom. Another strategy would be to allow a new field to be inserted above/below a selected custom field. Then I don't have to move it at allssmorgan10 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea2.4KViews2likes2CommentsAllowed to modify Checklist, Participant, Review Information
In the role template, I encountered some problems. Cases: 1- When choose No to "Allowed to modify review General Information", the role that assigned No,could not change checklist part. 2- When choose Yes to "Allowed to modify review General Information", the role can change Review Template, group, participant. Could you separate the permissions ofGeneral Information as "Allowed to modify Checklists", "Allowed to modifyReview Information" and "Allowed to modifyParticipant"?rgundogmus5 years agoNew ContributorImplemented3.1KViews1like5CommentsEasier Way to Differentiate Between Updated Files
Hello, Would it be possible to find an easy way to let to Reviewer know which files have been updated in a review? Right now the Reviewer must click on the files to see what has changed. Could the "added/changed/deleted" numbers be a difference from the last reviewed/accepted revision as opposed to a running count of all modifications to the file? Even a visual indicator like (*) next to updated files with changes from the previous reviewed/accepted would be sufficient. As things are now, it's a really chore to review code using Code Collaborator. Thanks.AGuest8 years agoNew MemberAccepted for Discussion7.3KViews2likes4CommentsFiltering existing review view or search tabs.
The main portal filter for reviews is pretty basic, we’d like to see increased functionality in this while searching or filtering reviews for each user. a. Time based filters (last updated, created etc.) b. Ability to tag & group set of code reviews (helps when there are multiple code reviews for some big feature) c. Filter based on above mentioned tagsNobody9 years agoNew ContributorAccepted for Discussion7.4KViews2likes2Comments- karenfri7 years agoSenior MemberCommunity Feedback Requested3.2KViews1like2Comments
Possibility of adding elements (e.g. pictures) from the clipboard to the pin comment field
If you review something that is not readily available or accessible in the Collaborator viewer- such as for example 3D files or other content that is not supported, it would be very beneficial if you could take screenshots and add them to the comment field. That would allow you to conduct the review in Collaborator, using a native application to view the contents but using Collaborator to capture the findings.GMANJS7 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea1KViews1like0CommentsNeed JSON REST command that returns what groups a given user is a member of
I cannot see a JSON API command that will return what groups a given user is a member of. This is quite useful for administration of users, and syncing such information between tools, but I cannot see any such command in the documentation. Hopefully I’m just not seeing it and it can be pointed out to me. If not, I would respectfully ask that such a command be considered for addition to the API soon.MartinaRi7 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea993Views1like0CommentsNeed a way to get a list of all groups defined via JSON REST API
The documentation for the Collaborator REST API for the GroupService.getGroupList command states that if no review ID is provided, a “list of all groups visible to the user” will be provided. However, when this API command is issued with a user which has admin privileges (in fact, it has all possible privileges for a user), the result is not the entire list of all groups, but instead just the groups that the user is a member of. I can’t find the location at the moment, but somewhere in the Collaborator API documentation it specifically states that all groups can be viewed by calling this API command with an admin-level user, which makes sense, but that’s not the way it’s working for me. In the end, what I need is a way to get a list of all groups defined on the given Collaborator service. Also I tried to label this post API, but there is no API label. This is Collaborator 11.2 and the JSON APIMartinaRi4 months agoNew ContributorNew Idea1.2KViews1like2CommentsRemove "Participants and Group Based" access selection when groups are not used
EDIT: This is reported to be fixed in Collaborator 11.2. Currently we have no way of preventing users from selecting "Participants and Group Based" access level for Collaborator reviews, and because we are not using groups, selecting this option locks out all users from opening the review record, requiring an Administrator to go in and change the record back to "Participants". All we can do is tell users not to mess with that field - ideally, we would have the option to remove that dropdown altogether from the form because there's only one option we want to use.MrDubya6 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.4KViews1like1CommentMake it possible to add a group of users as a participant to a review
Submitted on behalf of Avinash Ravikumar (Wipro Limited).AlexeyKryuchkov5 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)New Idea1.2KViews1like1CommentPrevent Completing Reviews that fail to merge in Bitbucket
My team uses Pull requests withinBitbucket Server and have configured Collaborator to merge the pull request when a review has completed. Unfortunately we have found that if the merge fails, the review still successfully completes. When this occurs we need to: manually re-open the review have the developer resolve the problem that prevented the merge from completing (fix the CI build, fix the merge conflict, etc) re-approve the review and send-to-completed again The Bitbucket plugin will then re-attempt the merge. When attempting to close a review, Collaborator should wait for Bitbucket to attempt the merge and if it fails, the review should remain open and all review participants should be notified.kevin-m-b7 years agoNew MemberNew Idea2.7KViews1like0CommentsFilter defects by user
It would be useful to be able to filter open defects in the review materials screen by participant. At a minimum, another filter button that filters down to your own open defects. Or more general, a drop-down to select a participant to apply to any of the other filters. I realize you can sort in the review summary screen but having a facility to quickly navigate through your own open defects in the review materials screen would be very useful.marke7 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea2.6KViews1like0CommentsDepartment field in the Users list
Submitted on behalf of Gadadhar Dalei(Nokia). The Admin -> Users list should also contain the user's department values.OlegB7 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)New Idea2.5KViews1like0CommentsHow do you configure a review checklist to clear whenever files are uploaded?
After people have checked items on the checklist, the author can upload all new files and the checklist items stay checked. Can the review template be configured to automatically clear the checklist whenever files are uploaded? Or, must the author manually uncheck them all?UserJD7 years agoOccasional VisitorNew Idea2.6KViews1like2CommentsDistribute the needed fonts with the Collaborator server installer:
Submitted on behalf of Hank Hu (Synopsys): If the Collaborator server uses non-free fonts then it should distribute them with the Collaborator server installer or, alternatively, use the free fonts that are shipped with all of the customs builds of a Unix VM.OlegB7 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)New Idea1.3KViews1like0CommentsSeparate Remote Repository Integration accounts from repositories themselves
When integrating with GitHub and GitLab, a separate Remote System Integration must be added for each project/repository. However GitHub and GitLab operate with a single account list per installation instance, and then a member filter per project/repository. This results in users needing to repeat identical username information for every repository/project the Collaborator instance is integrated with. Instead, the Remote Repository Integration could separate systems from repositories/projects. A "System" would be a configurable list that would present to the Users as needing their username to match. Repositories/Projects would look like what is currently provided, for Remote Repository Integration, but would have a mandatory "System" drop down to select which of the configured "System"s the repository is associated with. If a specific repository needs slightly different settings from the rest of the repositories in it's existing "System", a new "System" could be added with those variations and selected as the associated "System" for that one repository's configuration. In most cases, a number of repositories are hosted in the same GitHub or GitLab instance. When Collaborator is used as the primary review tool, it's likely many or all of the repositories will be integrated with Collaborator under only a few different credential settings (depending on how many different GitLab and/or GitHub instances exist). In our current use case, we have almost 40 repositories hosted on only two GitLab instances. That means when we complete our integration, each user will have to enter one of only two different usernames almost 40 times. Even though we have Single Sign On via Active Directory being used for Collaborator and both GitLab instances, GitLab has decided usernames are the human readable version of a user's name as listed in their profile, so no automatic matching can easily occur (all GitLab's fault).mtalexan8 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea3.1KViews1like0CommentsNon-expiring internal accounts for scripting when external authentication is utilized
I'm in a situation in which Collaborator has been configured to authenticate with LDAP (Solaris UNIX environment), our passwords are required to expire and be changed every 60 days, and we are using scripts which depend on one of those LDAP defined user accounts. I can't set the time-to-live to 12 hours, effectively require the re authentication of users each time they login, as that would expire the script user account every 12 hours as well. A special script running at a shorter interval so as to keep the script user account authenticated has been suggested, but it would be nice to have an internal collaborator account which was independent of both the time-to-live setting (has it's own?) and the external authentications PW expiration requirements, for running scripts.john_howson8 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea6.8KViews1like1CommentPlease add a keyboard shortcut to "File Mark Accepted, Overall"
Subject says it all: Please add a keyboard shortcut to "File Mark Accepted, Overall". We use the mark file as accepted for two reasons -- keeping track of where you are in the review -- what files you've seen and which ones you have not. Also to communicate to the stakeolders we did, in fact look at each file. My current workaround is to enable accessibility features (under windows) to allow me to use a keystroke to "click" using MouseKeys. Ideally, it would be good to have an overhaul of the functionality of doing reviews with the keyboard. Why not have all the navigation, acceptance done on the numeric keypad (with num-lock off). 8=previous change 2=next change 4=previous file 6=next file 5=Mark accepted (file) If you decide to do this, do usability testing on the feature. Repetitive keystrokes should be "close to each other" like "next file" and Next Change and Mark as accepted. Another thing that could be improved is marking files as accepted in bulk. For instance on some reviews we may get 50 or so files that get deleted. Marking them accepted is very tedious.googleid_1043348 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea5.6KViews1like1CommentAllow participants to filter files having comments or defects
Once a review has been created and participants provided comments, it will be nice for them to only show and focus on the files that have comments or defects. This can help them to spot the on-going discussions without scrolling up and down thru a huge list of files. This could be implemented like the existing 'Overlay' toggle button that is located in the 'Review Materials' section.Thomas_Andre8 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea3.2KViews1like0CommentsManually specified file version selector names when uploaded from client via Git
Problem: I upload changes as a commit range in git between a reference branch (master) and my current HEAD. I then later need to rebase my current HEAD against an updated reference branch (master) and re-upload the changes. It cannot be differentiated in the file version selector during a review which versions of the file are reference branch (master) and which are HEAD versions. Generically, client tool uploaded differences from git commit ranges automatically label all versions of files as seen in file version selector drop down, with check-in time and non-human readable git object hash (not commit hash) only. Rebasing changes against the latest version of the reference branch, or merging the latest version of the reference branch into the changes, between a first and second upload to a review causes the "before" version from the reference branch to be different during the second uploaded of files and have a newer timestamp than the "after" version of the file from the first upload. The "before" versions therefore can't be differentiated from the "after" versions in the drop down. Solution: Add optional command line argument for "addgitdiffs" that will allow user specified names to be added to the before and after versions of all files included in the commit range. Conflicting names are automatically appended with standard "(1)", "(2)", etc for a given file based on upload order. For example, if I have changes on a "work" branch that originally forked from "master" branch and changed fileA and fileB, my upload command would be ccollab addgitdiffs --before-name="master" --after-name="work" ask master...work which would upload all changes made on the work branch since it split from master by uploading fileA and fileB from the commit on the master branch right before the work branch split, and fileA and fileB from the head of the work branch (currently). The extra arguments would add labeling for all the files from master as "master" and those coming from the work branch as "work" (new). When my review continues for a while and I need to rebase my work branch against the since-updated master branch I'll need to re-upload my changes relative to the new reference point on the master branch. Running the same command as before accomplishes that but causes a problem. When the differences in fileA are viewed without this feature, what's seen in the file version selector drop down is (larger numbers with the timestamps indicate newer timestamps): "<git object hash> <commit timestamp 1>" <---- from master branch in first upload "<git object hash> <commit timestamp 2>" <---- from work branch in first upload "<git object hash> <commit timestamp 3>" <---- from master branch in second upload "<git object hash> <commit timestamp 4>" <---- from work branch in second upload With the recommended feature this list becomes much more clear: "master <git object hash> <commit timestamp 1>" <---- from master branch in first upload "work <git object hash> <commit timestamp 2>" <---- from work branch in first upload "master(1) <git object hash> <commit timestamp 3>" <---- from master branch in second upload "work(1) <git object hash> <commit timestamp 4>" <---- from work branch in second uploadmtalexan8 years agoSenior Member3.1KViews1like0CommentsRenamed/moved file shown in Review Materials
Indicate either in the Review Materials overview, or in the file differences view when a file has been moved or renamed. This information is tracked by a number of Version Control systems, and clearly indicated when examining the differences between commits/check-ins. Currently a moved or renamed file will show up as completely removed from the old location (all contents removed) and completely added to the new location (all contents added). If changes were also made within the file in the same range of commits/check-ins under review, they can't be differentiated. As a possible implementation, both the old and new file names in the Review Materials overview could link to the same file differences view where the before and after file names are listed as different at the top of the window (where there's currently only one center-aligned file name as of 11.0.11000).mtalexan8 years agoSenior Member6.8KViews1like1CommentMake it possible to add the changelist_scmidentifier field to any report
Submitted on behalf ofBrian Kingsley (Draeger Medical). Need to be able to add the changelist_scmidentifier field to any report, e.g. "Reviews Currently in Progress".AlexeyKryuchkov8 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)New Idea2.4KViews1like0CommentsSuppress e-mails to authors until review is created
I've been tasked with creating "catch-up" reviews in transitioning from an old process to a new process. I have been building reviews by adding one or two revisions at a time, then seeing what the effect is on the total file count, and then possibly removing one of those revisions. I end up getting panicked e-mails from authors wondering why their code is going into review when they are not ready for it yet, usually after I've already removed the revision their code was in after realizing that revision included files that weren't slated for review yet. I'd like to delay notification of authors until Iindicate thatthe review is ready to go.marisette8 years agoNew MemberNew Idea3.5KViews1like4CommentsHidden or read-only Review Custom Fields
We have developed an integration from a document-management system that uses one review custom field to store foreign document id and version information. When the review is created this information is provided from the other system through the JSON API. Obviously we do not want the GUI Client users to change this field, but currently Collaborator does not allow this. To make life easier in this kind of use cases, I propose Collaborator admin section to have following extra (boolean) settings for review custom fields: hidden, only to be modified/read through the API read-only, visible in GUI, butmodifiable only through the APIKariAlho8 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea3.2KViews1like0Comments