Submitted on behalf of Microsemi (Formerly PMC-Sierra)
The motivation for us stems from the cause that usually even project admins have to contact system admins to uncancel a review. It'd be great if there was a feature enhancement for group admins to be able to uncancel a review.
Maybe add a new setting that will allow, "Everyone | Group admins | Author | Creator", to UNCANCEL reviews.
When running reports, the user lists show only those users that are active/enabled. In order to run a report based on a disabled user, one must re-activate the user. This introduces a security risk just to run a report. Users get disabled for many reasons (incorrect credentials, folks leave the company, etc.) and managers/supervisors still need to be able to run reports against those users. User lists in the report screens need to show ALL users, not just active users.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My team uses Pull requests within Bitbucket Server and have configured Collaborator to merge the pull request when a review has completed. Unfortunately we have found that if the merge fails, the review still successfully completes.
When this occurs we need to:
The Bitbucket plugin will then re-attempt the merge.
When attempting to close a review, Collaborator should wait for Bitbucket to attempt the merge and if it fails, the review should remain open and all review participants should be notified.
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.
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.
It would be useful to be able to filter open defects in the review materials screen by participant. At a minimum, another filter button that filters down to your own open defects. Or more general, a drop-down to select a participant to apply to any of the other filters. I realize you can sort in the review summary screen but having a facility to quickly navigate through your own open defects in the review materials screen would be very useful.
While attempting to add the path to a script as a first parameter to a trigger and all the needed arguments I noticed that all input boxes are limited to 255 characters. This limit is not allowing me to create complex triggers and offer robust solutions to practical issues for my users.
Please remove the 255 character limitation on all input boxes within the "Triggers" page.
Here is an HTML code fragment showing the limitation as seen with Internet Explorer Developer Tools.
<input name="triggerArgs1" class="PlainText x-form-text x-form-field" id="triggerArgs1" onchange="wizardConfirmNavigate = true;" type="text" size="60" maxlength="255" value="">
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.
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.