Add API for the checkbox "Restrict Uploads/Deletions"
There is currently no way using the command ccollab admin batch to create a review that has the checkbox "Restrict Uploads/Deletions" checked. There is no other API to do this either. SmartBear confirmed and directed me here.GMZwingelstein9 years agoFrequent VisitorNew Idea2.8KViews0likes0CommentsPrevent Cross References from breaking when a .doc/.docx is converted to PDF
Currently, when a .doc/.docx is converted to PDF by Collaborator any cross references in the document break. This is a known issue with .doc/.docx -> PDF conversion and there are several workarounds available outside of collaborator. Most of these work by setting the area of the document to the size of the PDF before conversion because the cross references are maintained by absolute location in the document which changes when the conversiont takes place. It would be nice if Collaborator could perform some sort of workaround when it autoconverts documents to PDFS.tleilaxuixian9 years agoOccasional VisitorNew Idea2.8KViews0likes1CommentEnhancing Collaborator api to facilitate smoother automation
When creating basic automation for adding new changes to an existing review using the available api, I wanted to validate the user input; the first input is the review number, followed by TFS changeset number. So the command would be add-review 1234 5678 - the first action is to validate if review 1234 actually exists; and this is where I got stock; collaborator does not have a basic is_reviewid_valid(reviewid) api; I can request to edit review 1234 (ccolab admin review edit 1234) but if this review does not exist collaborator suffers an exception - the exception results are then put on the console creating rather a nasty message - I would much prefer to ask the question is_reviewid_valid(reviewid) and get a True or False back, and take appropirate action based on the returned result. Can you add this feature please?sinaja9 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea1.3KViews0likes0CommentsArchived review id's not removed from the reviewers home page/dashboard.
We have recently upgraded our Collaborator server to 9.4.9400 with the update site 8.4.8406.001. Below are theobservations: 1. We have archived review items older than 3months old and as a reviewer we have old review items with different status that are not required on the web display dashboard. Is there any mechanism to eliminate this issue as this is causing a confusion for the reviewers when they are having more than 100 review items on their home page/dashboard? 2. As part of RTC/QNX integration, developers change code in the RTC/QNX system -> attached an existing work item to the change - > then submit for a review. During this, in the backend collaborator is loading all the existing review items and also the archived items which is taking more than 15min in creating a review. This is causing a performance issue on RTC/QNX side.kpk10019 years agoNew ContributorAccepted for Discussion4.1KViews0likes1CommentProvide user environment data (client / browser / Java versions installed)
For support purposes it would be nice to have visibility into what software versions our Collaborator users have installed - for example what browser they are using, what version of the Collaborator client they are running, version of Java, etc. Would be nice to include in two places: A detailed summary of software installed for a specific user - possibly available when a system administrator views a user's profile. An overall summary report (possibly in the "system status" page) that sums up the data for all of the users (how many using Collaborator 9300 client, how many using IE 11, etc.).MrDubya9 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.3KViews0likes0CommentsGenerate a report of who in my group has reviews that they need to complete
I have a group of 10 engineers and I want to know who I should bug about completing reviews. I want one report that shows all people in my group, and the links to all the open reviews that they are reviewers for, that they have not approved yet.SAlexander_SG9 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea2.1KViews0likes0CommentsImplement a feature that allows me to enter the Google Analytics code snippet
Greetings: We use Google Analytics to analyze the traffic of our web applications even if they are hosted internally. We could not find a way to declare the code provided by Google in the pages. One solution some applications like JIRA and Confluence allow is to insert the code in the announcement banner. But when I do this the code is not read as code to be executed, instead the code is displayed. We need to be able to implement Google Analytics as it is very useful to track where and how our users use the system, example browser versions, platforms, country they are located, times of the day, etc. I hope this is something you can implement rather sooner than later. I am ready to discuss with you should you need to exchange any opinions. Best regards Claudio OmbrellaClaudio_Ombrell9 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea1.3KViews0likes0CommentsInvite Non-Collaborator users when adding participants
This is an extension to the existing “Invite a Colleague” feature currently available, except allow the user to enter email address directly in the participant list: If someone creating a new review can’t find a user in the participant list (because they haven’t created their account yet), their email address is added to the participant list (the email address should leverage the same regular expression filter as the current setting for invite a colleague). Collaborator would send an email to the user, and ideally there would be a notification template where I could add specific instructions on how the user can log in and create their account, similar to any other email notifications sent by the Collaborator server. And even if the user did not create their account / did not participate in the review, the review record would at least accurately show all the people who were invited to the review.MrDubya9 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.3KViews0likes0Comments- CapocDa7 years agoRegular VisitorCommunity Feedback Requested2.4KViews0likes1Comment
Have Collaborator end the process thread if the certificate is not accepted
Currently, if Collaborator makes a request and the request cannot be completed because the certificate is not accepted, it waits for the user to respond. When these requests are made from scripts and there is no user to provide input, then the process simply hangs forever. It would be preferred if the request terminated instead of waiting and there was a specific certificate acceptance command instead.aksassu8 years agoMemberNew Idea2.8KViews0likes1CommentFeature request - adding date field to homepage
Hi, I'm part of Technology Information Services' department of L.L.Bean, we currently use your code review application, and I have a suggestion that I think would be useful, we usually have issues with our team and code reviews, because we must have them done in a certain date, we usually use the description for point the deadline, so I think that 1 more field added to the information and the columns in the home page with that field will mean a great help, hope you consider it.JacobHume7 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)Community Feedback Requested9KViews0likes2CommentsGit Hub Feature requests
(1) Automatically cancel a review when the associated pull request is merged. There are some on our team who are hesitant to add a code review tool because they believe that anything beyond the GitHub tool is too much overhead. After going from Collaborator to GitHub when I switched companies, I find I'm unable to do effective reviews, which is why we're going down the path of evaluating tools. I foresee a lot of reviews being created for 3-line changes and going stale. It would be nice if they could just be cancelled when the PR is completed or cancelled. (2) Merge PR and Delete branch when a review is completed. Some of the team dislikes jumping between tools, and don't want to have to click on the link to GitHub and then close it there.JacobHume10 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)New Idea2.8KViews0likes2CommentsPeer Review Defect field multi-issue type shading
I have setup my Defect/Finding fields to cover two types of issues in a review: 1) A process Escape that addresses one kind of issue. It has four sub fields and 2) is an Action Item that requires some extra effort by someone other than the Author to get an answer. It has two sub-fields. Enhancement: For the same "Finding" input screen, where I am doing two different things - Escape or Action Item, can I create two distinct areas on the Finding Screen to make it easier for the user to know which action they are working on.brian_g_snell10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.4KViews0likes0CommentsOn behalf of Cummins - Feature requests
When reviewing Word documents, it won’t show tracked changes. We typically turn on track changes, and then edit the content. When reviewing, the reviewer can see the changes marked in red. When we upload a Word doc with tracked changes to Collaborator, it only shows the content without any highlighting of the changes. This forces us to upload it in PDF format, which then shows the changes properly. Due to our poor server (I would assume), comments often take 5-10 seconds to show up. Sometimes I will hit the button to send the comment, and my comment disappears. After a few seconds, I assume it didn’t take, so I type it again and submit. Then a few seconds later, duplicate comments pop up. It would be nice if the UI showed a progress indicator that it is saving the comment to the server rather than just having the comment disappear from my window until the server updates. Having a faster server would probably help, but for people who don’t have one or don’t want to cut through lots of red tape to get one, this feature would be nice. JJacobHume10 years agoSmartBear Alumni (Retired)New Idea1.5KViews0likes0CommentsAdd user privilege to modify review templates but not other "admin" level items
We have many groups that use the tool and each would like to be able to modify thier own templates that suite their own needs. Our "admin" does not likegiving peoplekeys to the entire kindom. So I suggest adding a priveledge level for a user to be able to modifiy review template related parameters. I do not know the tool that well so if some parameters are "global" then maybe have those parameters be set on a group basis. So each group can override the global settings if they choose. This would give each group the power to customize the tool without affecting other groups...jcohen10 years agoContributorNew Idea1.6KViews0likes0CommentsReview Defects: Re-position screen when adding defect so Add Defect box doesn't get clipped
Edit Defect / Comment box falls off the bottom of the screen when the item you are entering is near the bottom of the page. This could be easily missed and if not missed requires user to scroll down the page in order to take required action. Change the window scroll pointto ensure the comment/drop downs are specified when creating the defect (not the best screenshot below but close enough).MGergely7 years agoStaffAccepted for Discussion5.1KViews0likes3CommentsReview Defects: Highlight more clearly the current, active comment/action
The comments are not easily distinguished from each other. Create a space or highlight more clearly the comment/action that is currently active.Can we add some sort of delimiter/space to separate bug comments?MGergely7 years agoStaffAccepted for Discussion2.9KViews0likes2CommentsReview Defects: Can we modify the roles so that this option is set automatically or "hidden"
Only show me the "Mark as Read" if my role requires me to take action. Template rules can change the action required on this button. An observer may not have to read. The Mark as Read just indicates that you have read the comments. Can we modify the roles so that this option is set automatically or "hidden" to the end user when they are in a review and their role doesn't require them to review the comments.MGergely10 years agoStaffNew Idea1.7KViews0likes0CommentsReview Materials: Ability to "hide"/not display the added, changed, deleted metrics columns
To save real estate on the Review Materials screen, it would be nice to be able to hide these metrics, particularly if the counters are not updated if files are added via the Web UI. In some cases, the metric is not relevant/helpful to the team using the tool.MGergely10 years agoStaffNew Idea1.7KViews0likes0CommentsDisable email notification when annotation phase starts
An email is sent out to every member in the group list when the annotation phase starts => Can this be disabled?josulli110 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea4.2KViews0likes2CommentsSupport custom URI protocols when creating automatic links
Currently if a user enters a URL beginning with "http://" the URL will be automatically converted to a hyperlink. We have some applications that use custom protocols and it would be nice if those were also converted to hyperlinks. If there is reason to not just convert any protocol to a hyperlink then it would be nice if the admin could specify an explicit list of protocols to convert to hyperlinks.jholtrop10 years agoVisitorNew Idea2.2KViews0likes0CommentsOption to (not) open Automatic Links in a new window
When using the Automatic Links feature, generated links currently always open in a new window (they have the HTML attribute target="_blank" set). However, some URL protocols are handled by locally installed applications instead of actually showing up in the browser window. For protocols like this, the user is left with an empty new browser window (or tab) that they have to manually close. It would be nice to have an option when creating an Automatic Link for whether or not the generated link should open in a new window.jholtrop9 years agoVisitorPostponed5.7KViews0likes1CommentReliable notifications of action on a review I authored
I think the feature is just buggy, but I want to be reliably notified when a reviewer or observer has added comments ordefects on a review I authored. Sometimes I get emails, sometimes I don't and I can't trust it enough to know thatI don't need to take any action just because nothing is in my inbox. So I just end up polling Collaborator repeatedly, or I ignore it for a couple of hours if I get busy only to find that my reviewer dutifully made comments a while ago and I didn't know. This leads to inefficiency in our workflow.jomark10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea2.1KViews0likes0CommentsEmail notifications are not needed for the user that initiated a given action
Currently emails go out to all participants in a review. However, there are two very common scenarios in which emails are sent that are annoying and don't provide any extra value. 1) When I create a review I get an email that says "You are a Author for new Review #XXX". This should not be sent, I know I am the author of the review. 2) When I am the reviewer that completes a review I get an email saying the review is complete. This isn't necessary, I just completed it. Now I guess you could have a race condition where two people are reviewing and click Approve at nearly the same time and so you might not realize you're approval was actually ending the review, but I would argue for this to happen no one made any defects or comments so it doesn't matter you still don't care. But at a minimum if there is only one reviewer, and they click approve, they don't need an email.jomark10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea2.1KViews0likes0Commentsprovide option in GUI client to not launch new browser instance when finished uploading files
I frequently keep one browser (on Windows) open to a review I am creating using the Linux GUI client to upload files to the review. Uploading from subversion workspace might take a number of uploads from various project root directories. I am always dismissing the browser after the launch of each one. It would be nice to have a persistent preferences setting to speficy whether or not to launch a browser after uploading.sando8217 years agoNew ContributorAccepted for Discussion11KViews0likes3CommentsClosed-loop reviews
One of our teams would like to perform reviews where Collaborator prevents all the following scenarios: * Review is held up indefinitely because a reviewer never answers * Review is held up indefinitely because the wrong reviewer was invited * Author gets impatient with a held-up review and finishes it early (before it's had enough review) The first two problems are caused by too strict of a workflow, and the third is caused by not having a strict enough workflow.Ideally, we'd like the review to work like this: 1. Author sets two deadlines: one for accepting (i.e., agreeing to begin) a review, and one for completing it. 2. Author sends invitations.At this point, the review is locked; the author cannot make any changes. 3. If any reviewer refuses to begin the review, or if the acceptance deadline passes without everyone accepting, the review is unlocked and the author may go back to step 1 to choose new reviewers / deadlines. 4. If all reviewers agree to begin the review, the review starts.The review is still locked (author cannot make changes). 5. Reviewers read the code, make comments, etc. 6. When all reviewers have marked the review as finished, or when the completion deadline passes, the review is kicked back over to the author in either the Finished state or the Preparation state (depending on whether or not everyone marked it as Finished). With this workflow, no review would ever be held up because a reviewer ignored a review invitation, or accepted an invitation but dragged their heels reviewing it.Conversely, no author would be able to push a review through before everyone has had a chance to see it. The only way I can think to do this in the current Collaborator version is to use the Moderator role, and have that person perform all the gatekeeping manually (perhaps coupled with turning on review deadlines).That seems like overkill, though, and a lot of manual work.Is there a way for Collaborator to gate these steps in the process automatically?undees7 years agoOccasional VisitorCommunity Feedback Requested8.6KViews0likes2CommentsFiltering of review materials by choosing list of reviewers.
Lack of filtering capability adversely impacts reviewers and authors. Would be beneficial to be able to filter comments to those raised by a reviewer Those that reviewer added their support to etc. This would be very useful for looking at your own comments and comments from team members rather than seeing everything at once. Also for authors for discussing individually submitted comments. There could be a subfilter to include followup comments by others rather than just a specific individual. The Display choices could be expanded to include this capability.ghs110 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea4.8KViews0likes1CommentCreate Automated CC Reviews Cross-Servers using IBM RTC Server-side Plugin
Currently, our environment has two CCM servers for IBM Rational Team Concert. Below are the steps taken: Create a work item task on project located onfirst server Check-in all and deliver fromsecond server project and 'Associate Change Request' fromfirst server project (This will create Change Sets (Remote), under work item task link) Change state to 'Closed' in work item taskand Code Review does NOT get created (in our environment, changing a work item to 'Closed' will generate an automated code review within Code Collaborator using the RTC server-side plugin) We would likeSmartBear to take into account there areclients out there who have this scenario and can address this as high priority. Currently, our Developers are creating manual reviews and it is becoming a big pain-point. This makes it very difficult, complicated and very frustrating for the reviewers / end-users.This also defeats the purpose of having a Code Collaborator server-side plugin for automation. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!amaster10 years agoNew MemberNew Idea4.9KViews0likes1CommentMandatory Selection for Multi-Select Fields
Using multi-select fields, we cannot enforce that at least one item was selected before moving out of the planning phase. This could be a useful feature for fields that are required and could have more than one value (for example, work product(s) being reviewed in this record). It would be great if the tool easily allowed us to do this to ensure that all our records have the appropriate information for reporting & data analysis.MrDubya10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea4.8KViews0likes1CommentChange to main login page, set limit of reviews per page that can be modified.
Set pages for reviews on the main page so everything isn’t loaded directly when accessing and be able to increase or decrease that review count shown on it.Nobody9 years agoNew ContributorAccepted for Discussion5.9KViews0likes2Commentsfile assignment
Hi, in which way can I assign special files from a review to one user. So that the user can see only the files which assinged to him. The case I will fit is: I Have 10 files to review and 5 reviewers. Yet I will assign every reviewer 2 files. In the end all files should be reviewed. And the reviewer should only be able to change the files which are assigned to them. Is there a possibility to do this? Maybe with scripting? Thanks SimonNew Idea12KViews0likes2Comments