Ability to have custom field dependencies/relationships based on selection of a dependant field
Ability to have custom field dependencies/relationships based on the "Item" selection of a another custom field. i.e. Custom Field "Phase" --> Item selected = "Requirements" Custom Field "Type of Defect" dependent on the Custom Field "Phase" selection of "Requirements" --> Items available to select "Spelling error", "No Requirements defined", "Does not meet requirements" In the above example, the Custom Field "Type of Defect" would display different Items depending on what was chosen from the "Phase" Custom Field. thankssthmpsn8 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea5.7KViews1like2CommentsNeed search to be more efficient or limited in scope
This idea is raised as advised in Case #00185718. The ask: Make search times much lower for big datasets. Either make the DB representation more efficiently searchable, or give users the ability to limit the scope of the search. The background: In our Collaborator instance, searches submitted in the web UI take minutes (three to five minutes is typical) to complete. SmartBear suggested adding RAM to the Collaborator server. After our own investigation, we concluded that Collaborator's DB search is very inefficient -- it boils down to a case-insensitive regex match against every row in two different tables/relations. Our version of the table MTDTVLSTRNG has over one million rows and will only grow. Collaborator's SQL queries take minutes to finish. (Warnings are output in collab.log with stats.) So this problem is bad and will only get worse. Also, our database inquiry accounts for only part of the total amount of time it takes search results to be presented in the UI. We suspect that Collaborator is also searching the 'collaborator-content-cache' in a similar way but haven't bothered to prove it.MarkBo8 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea1.2KViews1like0CommentsCorrect line counting for Word docs.
The counter "added lines" and "deleted lines" does not work for Word docs. Should be repaired, as I would rank this as a bug.MaryConti8 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea2.2KViews1like0CommentsRetain the review materials section heading when scrolling a long list of files.
The section "Review Materials" becomes unreadable/unusable if you have several objects added and a lot of comments/defects are existing.When scrolling down, the heading of the table disappears, and you can't see the reviewers' names anymore, so you don't know who was the submitter of which comment/defect unless you either scroll back upwards or open the single commentMaryConti8 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea2KViews1like2CommentsKeep the menu bar visible at all times.
When scrolling down, the top menu bar disappears. This is rather annoying as you always have to scroll up and down... Request: Make the menu bar on top of the Collaborator window fixed. Only scroll the "main" windowMaryConti8 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea904Views1like0CommentsPool participation should override group access restrictions in inspections
I’ve found what I consider a deficiency in the review access system We restrict reviews to “Participant or Group”, meaning the only people that can see a particular review are the people who are participating in a review, or anyone who is part of the group in which the review resides. We did this as the multiple projects on the same server were worried about people outside the project seeing review material. However, this restriction has broken the Pool participation feature. According to SB, the pool group must be a child of the group in which the review resides. This implementation is backwards, and I’m hoping it can be fixed. For example, if you have 10 project groups, and you wanted the Quality group to be a pool recipient in any project review. Under current SB design, you would have to add the Quality group as a child of each and every Project group, in order for Quality to be an available pool participant in any of the 10 project inspections. This is over bearing, and has made the Groups quite messy, and a pain to manage. We believe that inviting a group to be a pool participant should be ‘enough’ to allow the entire review pool to see the review. Once someone from the pool accepts the review, it would be OK to lock down the review so only the accepted participant of the outside group (Quality, in this example) could see the review.johnmcdraper8 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea2.9KViews1like1CommentCreate Pool Review Name variable substitution
I’m editing the email templates SB uses to be more in line with our requirements. In the email that goes out to a group requesting someone accept a review as a pool participant, I would like to include the name of the group that was invited. Currently, there is no variable to contain that name (http://codecollaborator.smartbear.com/docs/manual/10.0/index.html?admin_var_subst.html) There some review.group variables, but those are for the group that the review is a part of – not for the group that was invited as a pool participant. I request that such a variable be added.johnmcdraper8 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea2.1KViews1like0CommentsShow group membership for users.
It would be nice of users could see what group they were a part of. Right now you have to open each group and look at members in order to determine if user X is in that group. Group membership information should be available on the admin/users/edit page for a user; and on the users Prefs page.johnmcdraper4 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea2.4KViews1like1CommentCreating a Lean review creation process
When custom fields are created to Templates and used for the creation of reviews, some fields are fixed per project - for example, Project Name, Project Id andTemplate name for the review. As reviews are a very key part of the development processes (teams create a lot of them) it would make sense to provide a way to set default values for such custom fields. As an example, Team member x, should be able to specify for all reviews he created, he would like Template to be to Template1, Project Name to by "My Project" and "Project Id" to be set to 123. This would make the creation of review so much easier.sinaja8 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea2.9KViews1like2CommentsI want to enable at least some users to modify reviews after they are completed
We want to maintain some post review analysis in the review record. That analysis will be provided by someone who was not a participant in the review. They would need to edit the review record after the review is completed. Subscription could be a way to handle this, but there may be some reviews that get missed. Is there a way to enable a set of users to modify ANY review? Is there a way to enable ALL users to modify any review after it is completed?MaryConti8 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea5.3KViews1like6CommentsAction Items screen doesn't sort in Collaborator
I can't tell there is any kind of sort to the Action Items Screen and when I sort it manually and select an item and then go back to the Action Items screen, I have to resort it again. Can there be a way to configure it to sort on a particular column or at least remember what the last sort was?richard7248 years agoOccasional VisitorNew Idea2KViews1like2CommentsAllow Creator to Change Reviewer Role for Subscribers
In our workflows, our senior engineers are subscribed to observe all reviews for their reports. In previous (v6) versions of Collaborator, the creator could promote a subscribed observer to reviewer. This is not possible in v10 and will prevent us from upgrading to this version as it would be a major impact on our workflows. One thought is to make everyone an admin, but this is less than ideal. EDIT: This is already supported through settings. Admin -> General -> Subscriptions Mode : Set to Mandatory Don't Enforce Roleawalker9 years agoVisitorNew Idea1KViews1like0CommentsIntegration to SonarQube Server
Hello, we use in our development environment a SonarQube (http://docs.sonarqube.org/display/HOME/SonarQube+Platform) server for analyzing the technical quiality of our source code. One of the mandatory points on our checklist for code reviews is to check whether there are any major/critical/blocker SonarQube issues for the sources under review. This means, the reviewer has to open a new browser window, bring up the internal SonarQube web ui and looking for the source files under review. My Idea now ist, that Collaborator makes use of the rich REST API of the SonarQube platform (http://docs.sonarqube.org/display/DEV/Web+API) and retrieves automatically any issues on the sources, which are reviewed and which are monitored in SonarQube. This probably means some configuration form mapping the sources to the SonarQube projects and components, but I think this should be feasible. Best Regards, Thomastschindler9 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea2KViews1like0CommentsReviews Created for Every Commit
A CC Review is generated for every commit made on the repository. This will result in many, many emails at one time, unmanageable for the most part. In our process, there can bemultiple ‘commits’ in our every Peer Review (PR). We had to turn off the GIT integrationbecause of this.LMurphy7 years agoOccasional VisitorNew Idea1.5KViews1like3CommentsIntegration of automated static analysis results as another input provided for a code review
When using static analysis tools, such as SonarQube (http://www.sonarqube.org/), it would be ideal if the changeset was able to be scanned and the results provided as feedback within the code collaborator code review. This would allow the human reviewer to see and to comment on the feedback from the machine-driven results. This also would elevate the machine-driven feedback to something akin to another code reviewer. Admittedly, there are developer-centric feedback channels such as sonarlint but these do not facilitate exposing this information to the code reviewer.simpleuser9 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea1.5KViews1like0CommentsSort Review Templates and Checklists in drop down list in alphabetical order
Currently there is no option to sort the Review Templates and checklists defined in alphabetical order. It would be good to have these tabs sorted so that on creation of a review, in the drop down list we have them sorted in alphabetical order.SapnaRaju8 years agoOccasional VisitorNew Idea1.9KViews1like1CommentSend to Rework shows confusing status
If a reviewer clicks send to rework, indicating he wants to get the fixed material when it is done, then his status is set to "approved" and that is confusing for users. It doesn't indicate to a reviewer that he did indeed request to see it again, and it doesn't indicate to the author which reviewers want to see the fixed review material. While I do understand that the review will become active for those requesting, it would provide good information to the reviewer and the author to know the "real" status of each reviewer.MaryConti9 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.4KViews1like0CommentsUnix installer should setup ccollab-server to run under non-root account
The Linux installer itself will unpack, install, and launch ccollab-server under any user. Its system startup script /etc/init.d/ccollab-server however does not supportlaunching the server under a specifiable user, os the server will happily run as root the next time the system restarts, creating a potential security issue.dietmarb019 years agoOccasional VisitorNew Idea1.8KViews1like0CommentsE-Signature Delegation request.
There are times where it is necessary to allow a Manager to electronically sign for a reviewer. It would be helpful to enhance Collaborator to provide support for this activity in a regulated environment. Manager X could be configured to provide approval/e-signature authority for users: A,B,C,D,E. The approval / e-signature audit trail would then state that Manager X {signed/approved} for USER E.ssmorgan9 years agoSenior MemberNew Idea2.3KViews1like1CommentConfigurable Defect Log
(un)hide columns Is it possible to have the ability to hide columns in the defect log. It would be nice, for reading purposes, if we are able to hide and unhide (as an example) the “ID”, “location” and “Origin” to save space on the defect log. Possibility to open the review screen in a new tab by Clicking on a defect (right mouse click?) By clicking on a defect the review screen should be able to open in a new tab and not in the same window (or at least provide a choice) Column wrap is the text is too long Do not cut of the text but wrap the text Provide a horizontal scroll bar The overview should fit in the screen, so it the columns take up too many space provide a scroll bar (even better make the column width configurablevverbove9 years agoEstablished MemberNew Idea866Views1like0CommentsAdd review ID search to "Add to Review" wizard in eclipse plugin
In the eclipse and RTC plugin it can take a long time for all possible existing reviews to be pulled when attempting to add files or changesets to an existing review. It would greatly speed things up if there was an option to enter a review ID to search instead of searching for all possible reviews for a given user.miguel_vargas9 years agoRegular VisitorPostponed8.1KViews1like1CommentAbility for Moderator and Author to Accept All Comments vs One at Time
Currently the "Required to Read All Comments" setting exists. How about a "Required to Accept All Comments" for the Moderator and Author (from one button for the file(s) under review), vs clicking each comment and accepting each one manually one by one?David_Chin10 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea1.4KViews1like0CommentsRole Configurations options
Please add a "Edit Only" options in Role Configurations for "Can change other user's defects".carol_t_price10 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea2.5KViews1like0CommentsStart a review without choosing him/herself as a representative of the review group to participate
Review pool is enabled. Review doesn't start until someone from the group chooses him/herself as a representative of the review group to participate => Is there possibility to start a review without this step?josulli19 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea1.6KViews1like1CommentChecklist improvement - 1
Need to have more than one checkbox per checklist item. Currently, when a second reviewer checks an item that is already checked the history shows that reviewer 1 checked it, then reviewer 2 unchecked it, then reviewer 2 checked it. The history becomes confusing when multiple reviewers are responsible for the same items in the checklist. We are subject to CCMI assessments and the Assessor likely will find plowing through the history to be less than optimal.scline10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea2KViews1like0Comments"Collaborator User" Custom Field Type
Add a new field type that allows you to select someone from a list of users invited to participate in the review. For example, sometimes we log defects on behalf of someone else (for example, if during an in-person review with a recorder), so we currently work around this limitation by including a text field where you manually type the name of the person who raised the defect. Also wondering if there would be value in providing the option to select from a list of all collaborator users (not just the ones added to the review).MrDubya10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea1.2KViews1like0CommentsContinue adding SVN revisions in Collaborator Client GUI
Usually we have a list of SVN revision numbers affected by an issue or change request. To start a review I'd like to copy this list into the Collaborator Client GUI and just go on with the review. But the tool stops creating the review when there is one SVN revision number in the list where only SVN properties where changed. Perfect would be to just continue importing when one SVN revision does not contain any files. (maybe just report the SVN revision numbers without file changes afterwards as a list) I already contacted support and it seems that this is a "feature" so I wrote this new "idea" :)FSC9 years agoNew ContributorAccepted for Discussion5.3KViews1like1CommentRTC / Code Collaborator Server plugin Does NOT create review
Scenario: 1. Project on two RTC servers (CLM & CCM2) 2. Create a work item task on project located on CCM2 server 3. Check-in all and deliver from CLM server project and 'Associate Change Request' from CCM2 server project (This will create Change Sets (Remote), under work item task) 4. Change state to 'Closed' in work item task and Code Review does NOT get created I can create code reviews on both RTC servers when work item and change sets are on the server. It is when the above steps are taken, it does not create a code review when the work item state is set to Complete.patrick_byrne9 years agoRegular VisitorPostponed6.6KViews1like2CommentsProvide color customization capabilities in DiffViewer
When comparing two documents in Collaborator, differences are highlighted in red and green in DiffViewer, which can be problematic for color-blind users. It would be great to add the possibility for each user to choose his or her own highlighting colors.caseatmtr610 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea2.1KViews1like1CommentProvide facility to organize review materials
It would be useful to be able to organize review materials into something like a folder structure. E.g. to reflect the organization of source code packages or to segregate supporting reference material or checklists (that are not necessarily for review themselves) from actual review material.marke5 years agoNew ContributorPostponed7.5KViews1like3CommentsMulti-Select Fields in Reports
Currently custom multi-select fields are not queryable and cannot be included in reports. We have a custom multi-select field that identifies the type of work product being reviewed, which means that our users cannot use Collaborator's reporting feature to get a list of all reviews for a particular work product, and also our users cannot see the work product from the report summary page. If Collaborator could be enhanced to include this feature, the built-in reporting feature would be much more usable.MrDubya10 years agoOccasional ContributorNew Idea2.2KViews1like1CommentInstaller options/triggers
It would be nice to run the installer with triggers that could preset the server, username, tray icon, proxy settings and such in a way that would be quick to implement. collabinstaller.exe -url -collab.domain.com:8443 -tray yes -proxy 127.0.0.1 etc...Nobody9 years agoNew ContributorAccepted for Discussion7KViews1like2CommentsMore Granular permissions per accounts
We have users requesting to run reports, but we don’t want to make them available to everyone because it will tax the system if thousands of users are all running different reports. Can we have a tiered admin section that will allow some users to run reports as well as other tasks?Nobody10 years agoNew ContributorNew Idea3.8KViews1like1CommentClearly indicate status of reverted files in code review
In our daily code reviewing workflows people keep relying on the chat to clarify whether or not changes that were made to a certain file have been reverted. By that I mean, a file in the code base has been changed earlier in the review, then it was reverted to its original version. This means it disappears from the svn diff that is uploaded to Collaborator. In the Collaborator UI the reverted file then still shows up and it is unclear whether the changes to it were undone. It would be great, if the status of a file in review that has been reverted to its original version could be indicated clearly in the UI, especially in the file view, not just the summary page. It seems like a minor thing, but reverting of files happens quite often and it would be nice if Collaborator would support clear communication about this.helixyz7 years agoOccasional VisitorImplemented21KViews1like5CommentsMultitenancy or License sharing between instances
Hello, to use Collaborator in a big world-wide operating company with different business groups that each have their own workflow these improvements would make life much easier: 1. a license mechanism that allows sharing the licenses between various server instances. or 2. Multitenancy Let me please go into detail: To point 1: This way a Collaborator server can be set up and customized for each group individually but still users are granted access by requesting a license from a global license pool. In a world-wide scenario this license mechanism would allow a better flexibility in the sense that all users benefit from the different time zone that the other business units work. Exceeding the max license number during peak times can better be avoided. In addition, the use of standard license servers like FlexLM would give us sufficient reporting information that could be used for license purchase decisions, Nagios binding etc. to prevent the situation of license exceedance in advance. To point 2: As an alternative to point 1 it should be possible to isolate the various business groups: - there should be a new admin layer that allows a business group admin to customize only their project settings like review templates, review notifications, user-defined attributes etc. In Collaborator everything is global, which makes it very difficult. All changes need to be discussed in a global Change Control Board. In a first degree it would help a lot to have the possibility to assign review templates to review groups, because a wrong-chosen template happens most, and we need to guarantee that a group-specific workflow is used.CltrAltDelicius10 years agoRegular VisitorNew Idea3.3KViews1like1CommentAllow reviewer to change status via email voting
Good Morning, Our SmartBear reviews inevitably lag with lots of time lost pinging reviewers to go "Inspection Complete" or "Review Acceptable." In order to expedite that, it would useful if SmartBear could send a reviewer an email with voting enabled to allow the recipient to "vote" to change their status as requested in the email and SmartBear, upon receiving the email, changed their status per response/vote. Thoughts? AndrewACDurston11 days agoNew MemberNew Idea7Views0likes0CommentsChanging role shouldn't wipe out approval
Changing a role from Observer to Reviewer or Non-Mandatory to Mandatory or vice versa shouldn't necessarily wipe out one's approval. It may be appropriate to reset the approval if the meaning of approval is interpreted differently, according to the role, but sometimes a person might give a thorough and knowledgeable review who had been assigned a lesser role in the review because of their expected unavailability. Then, if they turn out to participate well, it might be appropriate to update their role in the review, without needing to wipe out their approval. Currently, this isn't possible.jcf2 months agoOccasional VisitorNew Idea9Views0likes0CommentsAbility to resize custom fields in checklists
Currently custom fields size to fit the page. However user should be able to control the size of the fields. Use case is one custom field has smaller values so needs less real estate than another one which requires more real estate. But, SB gives same size to each field.rmorrow4 months agoNew ContributorNew Idea6Views0likes0CommentsAbility to reorder (drag / drop) content in Checklist
Currently when creating a checklist there is no easy way to reorder the content. User has to copy/paste etc which is extremely cumbersome. Most competitors offer drag/drop buttons to reorder the content.rmorrow4 months agoNew ContributorNew Idea4Views0likes0CommentsPossibility to define and select software labels or releases
The introduction of the "Project" field was a great help. We use a custom field to specify a label or release for each code review. The idea is to define releases per project in the project tab in order to give the user only defined labels/releases to choose from in the general section as a dropdown. This would help to eliminate manual entries and the associated errors.Gigi1236 months agoOccasional VisitorNew Idea6Views0likes0CommentsPreviously Accepted Comment
Since comment acceptance clears on file upload, it would be helpful to know which comments were previously accepted. So you would have 3 icons, unaccepted, previously accepted and accepted. This way it makes accepting a comment useful and not just cleared on a new upload. This way if you didn't change anything related to that comment you know you don't have to go back and look at it or get someone to reaccept.ChrisList9 months agoNew MemberNew Idea12Views0likes0CommentsCollaborator Server operation with Java 17
The IT department has performed a Java update on the server, as it is necessary for the operation of other software on the server. Unfortunately, the operation of the CollabServer 14.4.14400 is now no longer possible. It would be nice to have a CollabServer installation that supports Java 17. Furthermore it would be desirable to know how many users are active and how many users are logged in but without activity for x minutes.OGrimm11 months agoVisitorNew Idea140Views0likes0CommentsNotifications on reply to comments/bugs
A few users posted this on the community, but you might not have seen it. I am on version 14.3.14303, and it would be useful the get notifications, as a reviewer, to replies to comments or bugs, even if they were not my reported bugs.nunix2 years agoNew MemberNew Idea237Views0likes0CommentsAdd a 5th Role
I work in a very large organization. The default 4 roles is not enough for my organization. We are having to combine roles to keep the number to 4. Given we have a lot of turnovers, we have rookie team members who make mistakes executing processes. The additional 5th role is needed to correct mistakes made by rookies in SmartBear. When I say rookies, it also includes managers and technical leads who have no experience with the document material and can prematurely move the review to the next state when it isn't ready.draco-8886 months agoNew MemberNew Idea506Views0likes2Comments