Collaborator Feature Requests

  I often find most of the changes are boilerplate changes, typically the date and/or document revision number in the footer. This means “jump to next change” is not particularly helpful since it takes me through each footer of every page. I know it will be non-trivial, but it would be amazing if there would be a way to skip this sort of boilerplate change that changes on every revision and isn’t really a change. ... View more

Currently once you have typed a comment you have to use the mouse to click Add.   Ctrl+Enter should add the comment like in many other applications. ... View more

I would like to see support for reviewing local HTML documents, where I can navigate, drop pins and see differences from within the Collaborator environment. Something related has already been done with the Simulink review tool. ... View more

In a regulated environment the compliance with development processes need to be proved. An organization needs to be able to access all artifacts for about 10-15 years depending on the regulation requirements. Therefore version control systems are used to guarantee the access for all versions of saved elements. If there is the requirement to perform reviews prior to check-in of content, the review data like comments, status and review material must be available during the whole time. But the review material should already be stored in the version control system so that it's storage in the Collaborator cache is only needed as long as the review is not completed. Especially Office documents that are converted to images use a lot of space on disk. It would help a lot to have a button like "Remove uploaded material of completed reviews that are completed since xxx date". ... View more

Currently when developers upload different versions of the same files using the eclipse plugin the files are identified based partly on their relative paths. This becomes a problem when these paths differ between uploads. This can occur for various reasons (like when release version information is included in the path) and cause files to be treated as unique files rather than new versions of the same file.    It would be very helpful to have a way to tell Collaborator that specified separate files in a review are actually the same file and should be treated as a new version of the file.         ... View more

When you add several changes from git via GUI client to one review there is no way to understand which repository the file belongs to. For example(screen in attache), if several commits contain files with the same name, you can only understand which repository they refer to using a hash. The screenshot shows an example when all 3 files with the same name refer to different repositories. Adding the name of the repository, and not just the file with changes, would help us a lot. Thanks for attention! ... View more

I have a team working on Gitlab integration with Colalborator. When merge requests are made on the GIT side, a Collaborator review is automatically created. Unfortunately, the Group and Templateis selected somewhat randomly.    According to customer service they are "The last Group and Templated that the merge author happened to use".  Often this is the wrong choice.  WHen we change them by hand we then lose all the other auto filled data in the review.   Give how well the GIT / Collaborator integration is set up, it would be nice to have a way to specify Group and Template to use for the review.  ... View more

It's annoying to get thrown out of Approval in several cases; but some cases are valid. Either way, what can be further annoying is not having Code Collaborator indicate any information in the code review webpage on whether or not reviewers had previously been in the Approval state.   It would be nice, if the State column, indicated in some way, that users (reviewers/observers/whatever) had previously been in an Approved state but now are not.   With so many code reviews going on, it's easy to second-guess yourself on "didn't I approve this already"?  And having the tool help keep oneself up-to-date on such matters would be handy.  Also, as an Author, it'd be nice to see the same information; as that may help lead the author to know which subset of reviewers really needs to pay more attention to the review (because perhaps the reviewer's that need to re-approve in this case were and are actively and responsively enganged with the review, but some subset of other reviewers are behind needing to get to it still). ... View more

We would like to be able to use participant custom fields to keep track of process roles for our participants (for example, Jane is the Software Tester and Mark is a Mentor, and Julie is the Auditor).  Right now because these fields cannot be set by the person setting up the review, it puts the onus on each participant to log on and change their field.  It would be great to allow the person setting up the record to enter this type of participant information which would be more efficient and less error prone than the current workflow supported by Collaborator. ... View more

Hi! We encourage our employees to add a version to a PDF or DOC file name so it's easier to handle on the local disk, fileserver, webserver or in an email to a customer.   But collaborator can't match a file like "OurManual_V1.0.0.pdf" and "OurManual_V2.0.0.pdf" to be the same.   Easiest might be to add the option in the webinterface "Upload->File" to select an already existing file and state that this is the newer version of it (although the name has changed slightly)   or did I overlook an option in the GUI or the commanline tools? ... View more

We're reviewing source code in a language that is not currently supported by Collaborator (Ada). It would be useful to be able to add a language syntax highlighting definition. There are other tools, e.g. Ultraedit, that do this with a simple text file that lists keywords against formatting options (colour, bold etc). The filename extensions are then mapped to the language definition. ... View more

The filtering feature of defects on the left (e.g. “Show/Hide conversations with fixed defects”) is implemented as “collapse” instead of “hide”. So this means the defects will still be in the list although collapsed. This is no problem if you have 5 defects but in large documents with 100 defects this is really annoying. Please don’t show hidden status at all. ... View more

Allow the creation of a User defined/Custom date field that is a Calendar pick rather than a text field requiring a JAVA script to ensure a real date is entered. ... View more

Add more options other than "Marked Fixed" in Collaborator.  Marked Fixed can be confusing. Options: Mark Fixed Mark Closed Concur with Reject Concur Withdrawal ... View more

Users should be allowed to change, or at least increase, the resolution of PDF files that are uploaded to a review.   When we were using PrintToReview, we had the ability to change the resolution of PDF files that we uploaded for review.  This was useful when the default resolution was not easy (or sometimes impossible) to read.  Now that PrintToReview has been made obsolete, we are no longer able to change the PDF file resolution when uploading the file, and this has caused us to reverto to manual reviews for some of our documents. ... View more

If we want to configure the roles so that all comments must be read befor the review can be closed then the automatic generation of unread "Marked review action fixed:" comments forces another time-wasting back-and-forth between the author and reviewer before the review can be closed. It would be great if the "Marked review action fixed:" comments could be generated as being already read or alternatively not included as unread comments when determining whether the review can be completed or not.   The sequence of events that causes the scenario are as follows (with the roles configured to require reading all comments):   1)     Reviewer creates an action item in a review.   2)     Author addresses action item and uploads a new file.   3)     Reviewer marks the action item as fixed and in doing so a "Marked review action fixed:" comment is automatically added to the review. The review is effectively finished at this point but the reviewer is unable to approve the review because there is an unread comment (the "Marked review action fixed:" comment) that the author needs to first mark as read. This is the problem.   4)     Needlessly the author goes must now go back and load the review to mark all of the "review action fixed" comments as read. If there are a lot of files in the review this has to be done manually for each file. Also, if there happen to be additional comments left by the reviewer along-side the "Marked review action fixed:" messages then the author needs to sort through all of the useless "review action fixed" comments to try and find the useful comments.   5)     The reviewer now needs to go back and open the review to do nothing more than click the Approve button which could have been done in step 3 if the "Marked review action fixed:" comments weren't automatically generated and marked as unread and weren't preventing the review from being closed. For our use-case this extra step is both a nuissance and a waste of time and therefore we cannot configure the roles to read all comments even though we would prefer to have the roles configured that way. ... View more

Hello,   Would it be possible to find an easy way to let to Reviewer know which files have been updated in a review? Right now the Reviewer must click on the files to see what has changed. Could the "added/changed/deleted" numbers be a difference from the last reviewed/accepted revision as opposed to a running count of all modifications to the file? Even a visual indicator like (*) next to updated files with changes from the previous reviewed/accepted would be sufficient. As things are now, it's a really chore to review code using Code Collaborator.   Thanks. ... View more

The main portal filter for reviews is pretty basic, we’d like to see increased functionality in this while searching or filtering reviews for each user. a. Time based filters (last updated, created etc.) b. Ability to tag & group set of code reviews (helps when there are multiple code reviews for some big feature) c. Filter based on above mentioned tags ... View more

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" 🙂   ... View more