Manage order of configurations in Collaborator Enterprise Client
I'm working on two projects, each with a large and complex folder structure. To speed up scanning for differences, the projects were futher divided folders within each of the projects. Although this dramatically speeds up scanning, it does result in many SCM configurations listed in the client, and it appears random, making the task of finding the correct "Local Path" tedious and error prone - especially considering that each of the two projects share very similar paths. It would be ideal if Collaborator could support the following features: Maually ordering the configurations within the client, or at least sorting by Local Path. Support for groups of configurations. If more than one group is configured, prompt the user which group should be loaded, and provide the ability to switch groups. I'm considering trying to manipulate the ".smartbear\profiles" folder in an attempt to simulate this (i.e. have two seperate profiles directories, that get renamed to ".smartbear\profiles" depending on which project I'm currently working on, and then rename the ".options" files to manage the order).mayertj16 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea802Views0likes0CommentsHave GUI client provide GUI for file selection when adding Subversion Diffs
In the Collaborator Enterprise Client GUI, click “Add Subversion Diffs”. Click the “Revisions” tab. Change the Subversion URL to be the top level of the directory structure you want to diff. The “Before Revision” should be the last SVN commit that was reviewed (see SVN’s “Show Log” for the revision ID). However, at this point, you cannot chose to include/exclude some files from some of the revisions. This is useful when certain things should be submitted to the repository but not reviewed (*.bin files for instance). This would be a nice feature.jaldridge6 years agoRegular Visitor981Views0likes0CommentsSee who reviewed the file
For example: When you accept in chat field, in the Review General Page - the field of files, the user is seen with Approved icon. Could you add the feature that when the user open file, add "Eye icon or something" to be seen with "Eye icon or something" in the Review General Page - the field of files.rgundogmus6 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea573Views0likes0CommentsAllow reviewers to move to "Waiting" state while in Rework phase
Currently there is no way for a reviewer to move from "Active" to "Waiting" state when a review is in the Rework phase. So the reviewer has to manually check to see if there has been activity in all reviews that arre in the Rework phase.smalick6 years agoFrequent VisitorNew Idea460Views0likes0CommentsReview Template Disable&Edit
Hi, In the Review Template, I cannot change the components inside after disable and automatic templates are created. Don't you have the option of doing the Disable option as in Checklist Templates? Disable while edit and then enable. Regards.rgundogmus6 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea2.1KViews0likes2CommentsPermission to Create Defect - Role Template
Could the property be allowed to add defect to the role template? There may be cases where the person assigned as Author should not open the defect. As an example, the Author can only fix the defect or reject defect.rgundogmus6 years agoNew ContributorAccepted for Discussion3.9KViews0likes8CommentsAllow the review creator and reviewer(configurable) to make code changes in the GUI
Allow the review creator and reviewer(configurable) to make changes in the GUI like Win Merge, saving the changes to the uploaded change list. Allowing the reviewer to make changes would be great for training a junior developer, The reviewer could fix certain issues while commenting on what they did any why. It would save time having to manage the code in a separate editor, it would also save time in having to deal with some repository software (ie: Tortoise SVN).dmoore_eta7 years agoNew Member806Views0likes0CommentsGUI to add version controlled file (i.e. PTC) to a Collaborator review
It will be very helpful to add a specific version of a version controlled file to a given Review using GUI. Basically, it will be the GUI implementation of CLI of "addversion" command given in https://support.smartbear.com/viewarticle/91363/RajBhutani7 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea526Views0likes0CommentsCounterproposal Code Review
Is there a feature in the works for creating something like a counterproposal type code review? The idea that, instead of the three choices of "Author", "Reviewer" and "Observer" for adding a type of participant, because it is a counterproposal type code review, the two choices would be "Author/Reviewer" and "Observer". Then, instead of the phases of the review being "PLANNING", "ANNOTATION", "INSPECTION", "REWORK" and "COMPLETED", they would be "PLANNING", "ANNOTATION", "INSPECTION/COUNTERPROPOSAL" and "COMPLETED" with the last "Author/Reviewer" to counterpropose or upload changes being disabled from clicking the "Send to Completed" button and with the review being sent to completed when all of the others in the "Author/Reviewer" role send it to completed. I mention this because I was recently a reviewer on a code review where there were so many lines to comment on in a .js file and in a .jsp file, that it would have been easier to just counterpropose changes in the manner described above.JasonBurke7 years agoFrequent VisitorNew Idea1KViews0likes1CommentAllow to click on an automatic link in a checklist item without checking it
Automatic links allow to associate a regular expression with an URL. It is interesting to be able to add links in checklist items using automatic links, to reference a document or a web site for example. Unfortunately, there is no way to click on an url contained in a checklist item without accidentally checking the item, except by opening the contextual menu and choosing "open". But the first reflex is to click on the link. It would be great to be able to click on the link without checking the itemcaseatmtr67 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea607Views0likes0CommentsNewlines in Excel cells
The improvements in Collaborator 11.3 are great for Excel but newlines (entered by pressing Alt+Enter) are represented as spaces. I have code snippets in cells and they become unreadable. Specifically: if(A) { B() } else { C() } becomes: if(A) { B() } else { C() } With more complex code examples, this becomes near unreadable.johnml11356 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea966Views0likes1CommentAuthor should be able to mark defect as “tracked externally”
Author should be able to mark defect as “tracked externally” if it is not possible to fix it in scope of current review. However,author should not be able to mark defect fixed. Currently author must create external defect (PTC or Jira) and pass the id number to reviewer. Then reviewer can mark defect as “tracked externally” with proper id information. It is not convenient.BGottfried7 years agoVisitorNew Idea606Views0likes0Commentsdisable users automatically after predefined amount of time inactivity
i would like to suggest to implement a functionality (beter to be disabled by deafault with option to enable and configure) to automatically disable inactive users and configure the amount of time of inactivity to disable. currently we have to disable them mannually and with 5 digit number of users it is very hard to follow them as the user always can be enable again i think this is good portion of automation Thanks in advanceradey7 years agoFrequent VisitorNew Idea577Views0likes0CommentsAdd Synergy SCM to support in Visual studio plugin
The SCM currently supported in Visual studio plugin are Git, Mercurial, RTC and TFC. IBM Synergy support could also be extended into the plugin which could be useful and time saving. Not everyone is using Git or Mercurial. Most of the organisations who are supporting legacy code are still using old SCMs. Since Collaborator already supports below SCMs • AccuRev • CVS • Git • IBM Rational ClearCase • IBM Rational Synergy • Mercurial • Microsoft Team Foundation Server • PTC Integrity • Perforce • Subversion Please provide support of Synergy also in visual studio plugin.SrujanaReddy7 years agoMemberNew Idea996Views0likes0CommentsCollaborator should come with a default syntax highlighting for .TXT text files
When my users open a text file they are Presented with a “there is no highlighting for this file type” pop up window. This is somewhat annoying, especially since they can’t do anything about it. Is there any reason there is no default “no highlighting’ behavior for text files, just so people don’t get a pop up for this common file type?johnmcdraper7 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.8KViews0likes2CommentsAbility to view two different files on the Diff-viewer at the same time
Submitting feature request on behalf ofRobert Bosch Motivation: Sometimes you just want to verify the usage by for example checking an interface or even the implementation of a function. For example, checking/viewing the implementations, in file "y", of methods declared in an interface in file "x" at the same time. Thank you.yimy7 years agoCommunity ManagerNew Idea801Views0likes0CommentsKeep the same line number of a conversation if the textbox is not empty
Submitting feature request on behalf ofRobert Bosch Example: Somebody selects a line or pixel in the collaborator tool. The "Start conversation at" window appears and the user starts to type the comment. When typing the comment the user wants to copy something from the uploaded file that's why this user clicks in another place (line/pixel). At the end, the selected pixel or line changes in the "Start conversation at" window, and this wrong place might be recorded as the origin of the finding. Is it possible to freeze the the location of the pin? (If the blue box is not empty?) Thank you.yimy7 years agoCommunity ManagerNew Idea816Views0likes0CommentsAllow review of TFS changesets for scenarios when changelist is empty.
When creating, renaming or deleting TFS folders, collaborator fails to create a review. The API does allow this but the resulting review does not show the changes. Please add full support for such scenarios.sinaja7 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea722Views0likes0CommentsChanging a group should not reset all group fields
Currently, when you change the group a review belongs in, all fields of the review will be reset. This behavior causes problems when we have a review creator who put the review in the wrong group. Moving to the correct group would destroy the review by erasing all your review information. http://codecollaborator.smartbear.com/docs/manual/11.0/index.html?admin_groups.html I'm not quite sure why this is done when groups are changed, especially when the Template is remaining the same. I would ask that changing the group NOT erase all the review data...johnmcdraper7 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1KViews0likes0CommentsError in Time Zones in Preferences of Collaborator
Hi Team, There is a clarification needed in Timezone under User preferences. As we can see the default value set as Europe/Helsinki (GMT+0200). Is this field value changes according to time. Based on the current season, it should be (GMT +3) because Helsinki has now Summer Time so it should be GMT+3. We are also not able to find the value Europe/Berlin in the Drop-down. Could you please let us know the reason behind these. Thanks and Regards, Avinasharavikum7 years agoContributorNew Idea2.6KViews0likes2CommentsUpload review materials via web ui
Subversion is configured with LDAP authentication (Our collaborator also). We have to add the repositories to collaborator without username and password because of different subversion access rules. Is it possible to use the currently logged in user to upload review material of a certain SVN revision in the web ui? Currently when not setting a username and a password to a repository an error occurs. We expected that in this case the logged in users data would be used to upload files. Or at least a prompt where the user can add credentials.danhauck7 years agoSenior MemberCommunity Feedback Requested2.5KViews0likes2Commentssetting group id via web ui
When creating a group via console client its possible to set the GUID. In the web ui unfortunately its not possible to set the GUID. It is set by a random value. The id is used in scripts to add reviews to a specific group. Its lees propably to add a review to a wrong group when the group id is more meaningful and not a random valuedanhauck7 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea1.1KViews0likes0Commentsprogress for action items list and review general information
A nice feature would be to have a short progress information on top of the review or/and in the action items list (dashboard): Progress of Review 0...100%, The percentage can be calculated by a formula and the following facts: - Number of open and closed defects/comments - Number of reviewed/unreviewed filesdanhauck7 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea981Views0likes0Commentscustomizable dashboard
Possibility to filter action items on home screen by groups (e.g. in our case Project) and subgroups (e.g. in our case Release) The standard configuration only offers possibility to Filter "Incomming", "Outcomming", "Completed". For home screen / dashboard a filter functionality like for the reports would be helpful. Its not possible to the user to use the report function because we have to deactivate the report functionality for user (required by work council because of possible work performance measurement).danhauck7 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea877Views0likes0CommentsAdd support to detect any change in excell, word and pdf
Currently only text changes will be detected by comparison plugin. We want to Review electric circuits as PDF Format. If a circuit Connection changes the comparison plugin doesnt recognize it as a changedanhauck7 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea860Views0likes0CommentsPossibility to change subversion comments in GUI
Sometimes a part of a subversion comment is wrong or completely missed. In this case we have to change it during review. A very nice feature would be if collaborator offers possibility to change the subversion comments directly in GUI. The subversion command for changing the commit comment is as follows: (hint: in config propedit/propset has to be allowed) $svn propedit -r N --revprop svn:log URL $svn propset -r N --revprop svn:log "new log message" URLdanhauck7 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea986Views0likes0CommentsAdd filter to chat window in any review
Hi , It would be great if smartbear can add filter to chat window on review page of web ui. It will allow users to filter for eg- the system-generated “New version updated” messages. As we upload files multiple times, if smartrbears adds this filter, it will allow users to see more useful messages. Can you please add this feature.We have got this request from our teams in general. Thanks.krs7 years agoVisitorNew Idea1.2KViews0likes0CommentsMake the "Approved" state of a file more obvious and better named
There's an undocumented (or poorly documented) feature that participants in reviews can mark revisions of files as "approved". This effectively bookmarks that version of the file for that specific participant, and also indicates all other participants that the file has been reviewed by the individual. This plays into the per-user setting of the default comparison view of "Last Accepted vs Latest". The feature is: 1. Poorly named. Reviewed does not mean accepted, it means it's been looked at . Subsequent changes may still be necessary, but I might not want to have to review everything from scratch again just to see if the one defect/bug was fixed. 2. Not obvious: Clicking an un-named checkmark button in the file view, but only on the overall discussion of the file, shouldn't trigger completely different behavior from the same button on any other part of the file. 3. Not documented: Only because I clicked it accidentally did I even discover it showed up on the Overall materials section. Through playing around with it did I discover what it did as a bookmark on that version of the file. Since it's not self-documenting (see #2), it should either be fixed to be self-documenting or much better documented in the user guide. I would consider this a major killer feature, and it's almost completely hidden. Suggested fix would be separate it from the File Overall discussion into a separate button. Something called "Mark Version as Reviewed" or something similar. Then use a different icon so it's not confused with the non-functional "Accepted" checkmark button that currently also appears on every comment/bug.mtalexan7 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea1KViews0likes0CommentsGitHub/GitLab Integration: Selectable default template by project
When a Collaborator review is created from a pull/merge request through the GitHub/GitLab remote integration, it would be nice if a template could be configured to be automatically selected based on the project the pull/merge request came from. Different projects may have different workflows, so setting a default template for the Collaborator review based on the project would set the proper workflow. Currently the default template is the last one the user creating the review (which is matched from the user creating the pull/merge request) used.mtalexan7 years agoSenior Member938Views0likes0CommentsGroup create/edit API to support review templates
To speed up creating a new group and adding member's to that group we have created a script that automates this in a way that fits our needs. The problem here is that once the script is run we need to manually update the group to set the proper review templates and default. It would be great if we could do this through the API to save time.boucherm7 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea982Views0likes0CommentsEnable/Disable User actions and administrator reporting in logging
As a international medical company we have the need to regulate who submits and performs code reviews due to FDA and other regulations. We require users complete a digital signature form as well as training before giving them access. This process stretches across departments as HR takes care of the digital signature and training, a quality team takes care of enabling the user and the devops team manages Collaborator.To help with the process of creating users we have Collaborator create the user on valid LDAP login and trigger a script which disables the user and sends the appropriate emails with further instructions. The process works well however we have no way of tracking the enabling/disabling of users. In our script we do log when we disable a new user but it would be very helpful and a possible audit need to know when Collaborator actually enables/disables a user and who issued the enable/disable command. This would also help in troubleshootingas we have had incidents where the wrong users were enabled/disabled by accident due to similar usernames.boucherm7 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea994Views0likes0CommentsAdd sorting feature on the basis of localpath in desktop client for code collaborator.
Add sorting feature on the basis of localpath in desktop client for code collaborator.This will help in saving time to find the right dir to start code review from.xs2bharat7 years agoNew MemberNew Idea983Views0likes0CommentsMake better visibility of the uploading process.
Submitted on behalf ofSalek Hamer fromKLA-Tencor: >>> Just realized what the problem was... I kept re-submitting the Outgoing change-set from RTC to the review, but did not realize that I did not check-in the new versions to the change-set. So there in fact were NO new files in the change-set to upload. HIGHLY recommend that when such an operation is attempted (i.e. adding a change-set with ALL code modules being identical to the already existing modules in the review), you flag this as a warning, and tell the user that NO NEW VERSIONS were added. This will serve as an excellent reminder that the user forgot to add changes in a change-set. If a change-set is complex and contains many modules, this will be a tremendous time saver for all involved. The way the system responds now is even more misleading than no response at all- it catches the fact that RTC requested the upload activity, and then pops up a dialog that asks to show new versions, leading the user to think that all is OK... <<<OlegB7 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)New Idea1.2KViews0likes0CommentsTrack ANY change to a review
Currently, there seems to be no history captured for various changes to a review (Reviewers changed to Observers, template changed, links added, etc.). We would like to see an Activity Log (similar to what Jira does) that captures any change to a review (who did it and when). We use reports from SbC against our CMMI dev process to measure performance in reviews. Some reviews appear to languish for many many days and then resolve, most likely because the Reviewers/Observers have been changed. We need to be able to capture this information when reviewing the metrics of our Code and Doc Reviews.cjbourn7 years agoFrequent VisitorNew Idea2KViews0likes1CommentGet CVS Add Diffs to work correctly
Hi all, I've had a problem getting the CVS Add Differs to Review functionality to work correctly. The feature is documented inhttp://codecollaborator.smartbear.com/docs/manual/11.0/index.html?cvs_ccollabgui.html Basically, you should be able to add CVS commands which are passed on and executed, and the results end up in your inspection. So, for example, if I send "-r 1.1 -r 1.2 file" to the Diff command, it should difference the two CVS revisions for me. In reality, no matter what CVS command I enter, the GUI ends up crashing. I'm not sure if it's a GUI bug, or related to the fact that the Colalborator server and CVS repository are on different machines. I've submitted a bug report, and the bug has been acknowledged, but will be fixed "some time in the future". (key word meaning never?) So I'm putting this to the Feature audience. Have others had issues with the CVS diff GUI, or if it's just me. :) Maybe if many people are having similar issues then a fix could be bumped up the priority list. Thanks for any feedbackjohnmcdraper7 years agoOccasional ContributorCommunity Feedback Requested4.3KViews0likes2CommentsAdd support for 3D pdf files
3D pdf files becomes flat image files in Collaborator making it impossible to use Collaborator to review the contents. A functionality is needed to be able to pin the 3D contents in the same way you can place comment pins with the Adobe reader.GMANJS2 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea1.3KViews0likes1CommentMake a preference for default zoom for images in review
We use a lot of small graphics in our products that look very bad when zoomed to page width. I can change the zoom level to 100% but it doesn't stick. Would be nice if as a review I could specify 100% as the default zoom level.CodeMonkey7 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea1.4KViews0likes0CommentsRestrict Author role from Checking Off Items in a Checklist
I have configured a review that contains a checklist, and I noticed that the Author role can check off items in that checklist.I would like a way to restrict an author from doing this. It seems to defeat the purpose of a checklist if the author can check off items, instead of limiting this capability to reviewers. I consider this to be similar to restricting an author from closing a review issue.RosLe0017 years agoNew MemberCommunity Feedback Requested4.3KViews0likes2CommentsVisual Studio Extension - Create Code Review From Changeset
The current workflow for creating code reviews within Visual Studio isn't as seamless as it should be. Developers already have efficient means to view an existing changeset or commit. Collaborator should extend these views so that the code review "Changeset" or "Commit" search UI is no longer necessary. Current workflow: Developers check-in, shelve, or commit code changes. Users goes to Collaborator toolbar and selects "Add Materials". User can then select that they want to begin by selecting a changeset. User locates their changeset via certain filtering options (this can take awhile). User proceeds to finish filling out the code review information. Proposal 1: Developers check-in, shelve, or commit code changes. Immediately after check-in user can view Changeset Details. User given option to initiate a Collaborator Code review which passes on the specific changeset so the wizard advances automatically. User proceeds to finish filling out the code review information. Proposal 2: Developers check-in, shelve, or commit code changes. Users when viewing "History" can see recent changesets. User right-clicks a specific changeset and can choose to create a Collaborator Code review passing on the specific changeset so the wizard advances automatically. Extra credit: Upon right-click call collaborator API and show user if a code review already exists for this changeset or commit.rwilkinson7 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea2.1KViews0likes0CommentsAllow triggers to run collaborator actions securely
Background: We require our users to complete collaborator training before giving them access to collaboratoras we need to comply with federal regulations. To save time we create users ahead of time but we disable them and for structure reasons we also add new users to a "New Users" group. Currently we automatethe process with the create user trigger and a python script that uses collaborator client commands and sends email to the new user and an admin. All this runson our collaborator enterprise server which is solely for collaborator tasks and has limited access. Problem: To use the collaborator command line we needed to install collaborator client and provide password. Wehave login ticket time-to-live set to 1 hour sopassword would be requested every hour unless we added the password to the client configuration file in plain text. Suggestion: 1) It would be nice if collaborator enterprise came with a command line so collaborator client did not need to be installed separately to perform actions on the server 2) To avoid having to install separate applications or use resources on another machine it would be nice if there was a way to perform collaborator actions on the server without having to pass an admin password in the clear.Some example may be to a pass a secure authentication token with a substitution variable to the script or allow commands run on the enterprise server by a specific restricted user to run without password prompt or allow the password to be stored encrypted in a hidden location.boucherm7 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea1.7KViews0likes0CommentsDiff Viewer should hilight only the author's changes
As a reviewer I want to see only changes added to the review. Suppose we have two users A and B working on the same file. They are committing their changes in order: A1 -> A2 -> B -> A3. Then user A creates a review with all his changes. This is what collaborator Diff Viewer produces: What we expect to see is all user A lines marked green, and line from user B left white. This is a common situation that multiple users work on the same file and we review the same piece of code twice, or even review code that no longer exists.rwycislo7 years agoNew MemberNew Idea1.5KViews0likes0CommentsJSON API - Get HighestReviewId
I am trying to write a process that analyzes all of our reviews and generates some custom reports. The problem is, there's no way in the current JSON API to find out the ID of the most-recently-created review, so there's no good way to know, as I'm looping through the reviews, when I'm done. Please add a "getHighestReviewId" function to the ReviewService. Thankscscooper7 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.9KViews0likes0CommentsPer-Subscription Permissions
There are currently settings regarding the Subscriptions as to whether the users automatically added as participants based on their subscriptions can have their roles changed, be removed from the reviews, etc. It would be nice if this setting related to subscribed participants could be set on a per-subscription basis. It would also be good to have an "Mandatory Enforced Role increase only" option to allow those subscribed as Observers to be promoted to Reviewer or Moderator, and Reviewer subscriptions to be promoted to Moderator. We currently have some new developers that are required to have specific mentors as reviewers on their reviews. In other cases we require certain users be moderators on changes to specific files. Most of our subscriptions have users set as observers though, and they'll occasionally be added to reviews they aren't needed on (test reviews, out-of-group reviews with conflicting file names, etc). Additionally we'll very frequently have cases where subscribed users that are automatically added as Observers are chosen to be promoted to Reviewer or Moderator on some reviews. With this mix, it would be useful to be able to specify the few subscription rules that are mandatory, allowing only role promotion, and leave the rest as optional at the discretion of the review creator.mtalexan8 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea2KViews0likes0CommentsAdditional Administrative Levels
Currently there are sort of 3 levels of Administrative access: 1) Full Administrator, 2) Group Administrator, and 3) Non-Administrator. Consolidating these settings into one place and adding a fixed set of controls would allow for better per-user modification of privileges. For example, if the per-user drop down that currently sets Full Administrator or not were expanded to be Full Administrator, Limited Administrator, or Non-Administrator, an additional page could be added to control accesses for those marked as Limited Administrator. This would add controls for specifically targeted things like Subscriptions and Canceling Reviews (list could be expanded over time). Additionally the Group Administrator settings could be moved/mirrored here so Group Administrators could be added from their user accounts rather than only from each individual Group setting. Things like Canceling Reviews you're a member of the Group Administrators for could easily be controlled from there on a per-user basis.mtalexan8 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea1.8KViews0likes0CommentsMore Granular access controls for Subscription settings
The Subscription settings currently have only two parts, one specifying who can change them when someone is automatically added, and one specifying who can modify subscriptions. The Subscription settings are configured on each user account as to what they want to be automatically subscribed to. The setting related to who can modify those is either "Administrator", meaning only an administrator can modify any subscription settings for what users are subscribed to, or "User" meaning all users can modify their own subscription settings. Most of our users are not trusted enough to modify their own subscription settings, so we're currently using "Administrator" for the restriction, but we have a collection of Senior Developers and Project Leads that need/want to be subscribed to a number of different things and are trusted enough to modify their own subscription settings. The only solution is to currently make those trusted users Administrators, or to have one of the existing Administrators modify the user's settings whenever they need/want to change their subscriptions.mtalexan8 years agoSenior Member1.6KViews0likes0CommentsTracked Branch regex/globbing for Remote Repository Integration
When configuring GitHub or GitLab in Remote System Integration, a branch(es) to track must be entered if "master" isn't the only branch you want to track. This controls which branches targeted for a merge as part of a pull/merge request will automatically create Collaborator reviews. In a pretty common git workflow, release branches are created for use as hardening/stable branches in addition to the mainline branch. If automatic Collaborator reviews based on pull/merge requests against these release/stability branches are also desired, they have to be included in the Remote System Integration list for the repo they're in. In our use case, we create a branch "rel_v##.##" for our hardening and release candidates as we're getting close to release. This branch is named and numbered related to the specific release number. That means we currently need to modify the Remote System Integration for our repositories every time we approach release. If glob or regex patterns could be specified for the Remote System Integration branches to track (at least for GitHub and GitLab), it would resolve the problem of constantly having to modify the Remote System Integration setting for a number or repos. As long as a consistent naming convention was used for branches, those branches that should be tracked could be specified once as a pattern and then never need to be updated again.mtalexan7 years agoSenior Member4.3KViews0likes2CommentsRestrict (existing review) uploads to author(s)
Would be nice to be able to restrict uploads to reviews where the uploader is an author. Twice a situation has occurred where someone uploaded files to the wrong review, significantly impairing the review process (and since you can't delete uploads once a review has *any* comments/defects, there is no way to remove the erroneous upload).bkambach8 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea6.2KViews0likes2CommentsAdd Close Review" button
I think this has been suggested before, but the issue is becoming a thorn in our sides as we use Collaborator more and more. I would like to see a separate “Close Review” button. There should be one button to say an inspector believes they are finished with a review, and another button that will actually close the review. Right now, “Send to Completed” has been overloaded and will perform both functions, depending on your roles. For some people, it means “I think I am done with this review”. But if you are a moderator (or some privileged role), hitting this button will also close the inspection. As admin I get calls almost daily to re-open inspections because someone ‘accidently’ hit the Send to Completed button. Having separate buttons with clearer functionality will make the review process much easier for my users.johnmcdraper8 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea9KViews0likes5CommentsCommand line for review material deletion
While it is possible to delete review materials on which there is no comment or defect through the web UI, it exists no command line (aka ccollab) allowing to do that action. Please add this new command. Thanks Thierrycaseatmtr68 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea2.2KViews0likes0Comments