Text in the chat window will cut words in half while wrapping the text, making chat text hard to read. (screen shot attached).
Words should wrap at a space break, rather than in the middle of words.
This would make read
ing test a lot easier wit
hout the reader havi
ng to re-interpret all th
e broken words
As of Collaborator 11.0.11000, syntax highlighting can be added for previously unsupported languages and existing languages can be modified.
It's a lot of work to figure out all the regexes for the different things that should be matched though, so it would useful if the community could share their work with each other on languages that aren't yet supported (e.g. Makefiles).
Add the ability to import/export a single language syntax highlighting configuration from the syntax highlighting screen in the Administrative Settings so the whole installation's configuration doesn't need to be exported and cut to share, and exported, modified, and re-imported to use new syntax highlighting settings.
When a user attempts to upload a file that is in the "restricted file types" list (a .SH file for example), Collaborator does not indicate to the user that the file was blocked, causing confusion.
The Collaborator server should indicate to the user that some of the files were blocked because they are on the restricted file list.
The Collaborator Enterprise Client's "Add Git Diffs to Review" modal window allows to specify Diffs to review by selecting the Before branch and After branch. We can browse thru existing branches thanks to the drop-down lists (see attached snapshot), but this can quickly become inconvenient when the number of branches increases. There are also some really irritating cases :
Solution > Persist the latest selected branches for a given existing review and user and allow to have the branches pre-filled
Solution > Configure a default 'Before' branch so that it can automatically be picked up for new reviews.
Our Dev team can create some reviews containing a lot of various files (eg. *.cs, *.xml, *.csproj, *.config...).
When reviewing the files under the 'Review Materials' section, we would like to filter the files by their extension types so that we can focus on the most important changes.
For instance, we can have just a few critical changes located under some .cs files and many unimportant changes in our .csproj files. In such cases, we would like to see at one glance the modified .cs files.
Currently doing Peer Reviews with LabView does not work. The users would like to be able to put comments on the LabView diagrams. Saving each file to pdf to be able to comment on each is not a great solution. There can be many files and files are coordinated with each other.
One fine summer day, "Jane Smith" (sAMAccountName/username == "janesmit") gets married, and changes her name to Jane Johnson. After returning from her honeymoon and going back to work, she logs into her computer and other applications as "janejohn", and all is well.
Unfortunately, when she logs into her company's instance of Collaborator (which uses LDAP Auth) as "janejohn", it is as if she has an entirely new account - the old account "janesmit" is separate, and she no longer has access to the reviews associated with her old account ("janesmit"). Collaborator does not act appropriately when accounts are renamed.
Jane is understandably not happy, and writes an email to the maintainers of Collaborator at her company, asking for the accounts to be merged. Unfortunately, Collaborator provides no such capability to the administrators of the tool, and Jane is sad. If only SmartBear would add the ability for an administrator to merge accounts, Jane would be happy.
Remove host/ip info from messages sent to users as it is in my opinion useless info and can be a security concern.
In our instance, the server is behind a reverse proxy. Users only know the url. The host info is registered in DNS to the proxy.
Sending the actual server's host info to the user on a password reset is meaningless and negates the purpose of the proxy to hide the actual server from the end users.
Submitted on behalf of Gadadhar Dalei (Wipro Limited).
Currently, Collaborator loads all users to the User List. If there are thousands of users, it may take considerable amount of time.
Sometimes, you want a different person to look at something, or respond to a comment. My team would like Collaborator to have a capability to tag another user. For example, in Jira, you can use "@lastname,firstname" to tag another user. We would like a similar capability in the comment boxes.
User experience would be greatly improved if the reviewer could associate their comment or defect to a range of lines instead of just a single line.
Additionally, if that range could also be inclusive of characters within a single line that would also be appreciated. When comments or defects are part of a large block of code being able to accurately call out an area of code instead of just a top line of code is helpful.
When I upload my code from Perforce to Code Collaborator the client tool allows me to "Create New Review" or "Add to Existing Review". "Add to Existing Review" pulls back all open reviews, including ones that are not relevant to me. Ideally the tool would also give me the option to filter this list to reviews that I am participating in (either as author/reviewer/observer/etc).
It's annoying when you're in a situation where there are significant amounts of open reviews to have to skim through to find yours.
Currently, when one creates issues and then sends to rework, the participant shows as "Approved" in the Participants module, which is highly confusing to our team.
Obviously the review did not approve this review as s/he submitted issues and sent to rework. The participant status should be "Waiting" or some new status "Reviewed", but "Approved" doesn't make sense.
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.
Submitted on behalf of Debdas Mondal (HSBC).
GitHub pull requests may have reviewers assigned to them. It should be possible to synchronize the list of pull request reviewers and the list of a linked Collaborator review's participants.
We have users that can no longer upload certain file types (for example, .SH, .BAT, etc. which do need to be peer reviewed) because they are restricted file types.
I understand the need for this feature and think it is a good idea to block potentially malicious files from being uploaded, however we are trying to figure out a good way to leverage this feature yet still accommodate users who need to upload and peer review these sorts of files. Renaming the extension to .TXT before upload is a workaround but doesn't work well when trying to upload from source control.
What would be great is if in addition to "Restricted File Types", Collaborator had an additional list of "Restricted File Types - Convert to Safe Format" that would automatically convert these files into a safe format - maybe by automatically adding at .TXT extension? This would allow users to peer review scripting-type files to the server, and protect the rest of the user community from potentially malicious uploads at the same time.
When you generate a report in the WebUI, you can print it, and you can copy the link to include in your bookmarks, email etc.
It would be nice if I could save these reports within the WebUI itself. They would be accessible from any location where you executed the WebUI, and possibly be available for other users to run.
On the basic side, users could have a ‘my reports’ section where saved reports could live. On the complex side, reports could be public/private (checkbox) and maybe restricted by group or public.
Reports are such a powerful tool for data extraction and analysis, yet managing them within the UI could be so much more efficient.
(I thought I had submitted this previously but I can’t find it in the forum…)
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).
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.