Showing ideas with status Community Feedback Requested.
Show all ideas
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
12-14-2017
06:03 AM
Submitted by
OlegB
on
12-14-2017
06:03 AM
on
12-14-2017
06:03 AM
Submitted on behalf of Nigel Hoyland (Surgical Innovations).
The Plastic SCM integration is requested.
... View more
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
10-04-2017
01:06 PM
Submitted by
mtalexan
on
10-04-2017
01:06 PM
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.
... View more
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
12-15-2015
02:56 PM
Submitted by
SAlexander_SG
on
12-15-2015
02:56 PM
I would like a timestamped history of activity on each review. Then I could easily answer questions like, * Did Joe approve the review before or after Ed's comments? * How long ago did Dave approve the review? * Did Bob update the code after Susan approved?
... View more
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
06-03-2015
12:46 PM
Submitted by
kcorbin
on
06-03-2015
12:46 PM
In supporting Code Collaborator for our organization, I have many users request both more emails and (most frequently) less emails from reviews. Ideally, this would mean more options in a user's profile settings, but they could also be set in review templates. Thanks, Kelly
... View more
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
03-20-2018
07:51 AM
Submitted by
karenfri
on
03-20-2018
07:51 AM
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
04-10-2018
06:38 AM
Submitted by
danhauck
on
04-10-2018
06:38 AM
Subversion is configured with LDAP authentication (Our collaborator also). We have to add the repositories to collaborator without username and password because of different subversion access rules. Is it possible to use the currently logged in user to upload review material of a certain SVN revision in the web ui? Currently when not setting a username and a password to a repository an error occurs. We expected that in this case the logged in users data would be used to upload files. Or at least a prompt where the user can add credentials.
... View more
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
12-08-2017
06:57 AM
Submitted by
johnmcdraper
on
12-08-2017
06:57 AM
Hi all, I've had a problem getting the CVS Add Differs to Review functionality to work correctly. The feature is documented in http://codecollaborator.smartbear.com/docs/manual/11.0/index.html?cvs_ccollabgui.html Basically, you should be able to add CVS commands which are passed on and executed, and the results end up in your inspection. So, for example, if I send "-r 1.1 -r 1.2 file" to the Diff command, it should difference the two CVS revisions for me. In reality, no matter what CVS command I enter, the GUI ends up crashing. I'm not sure if it's a GUI bug, or related to the fact that the Colalborator server and CVS repository are on different machines. I've submitted a bug report, and the bug has been acknowledged, but will be fixed "some time in the future". (key word meaning never?) So I'm putting this to the Feature audience. Have others had issues with the CVS diff GUI, or if it's just me. 🙂 Maybe if many people are having similar issues then a fix could be bumped up the priority list. Thanks for any feedback
... View more
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
12-01-2017
11:18 AM
Submitted by
RosLe001
on
12-01-2017
11:18 AM
I have configured a review that contains a checklist, and I noticed that the Author role can check off items in that checklist. I would like a way to restrict an author from doing this. It seems to defeat the purpose of a checklist if the author can check off items, instead of limiting this capability to reviewers. I consider this to be similar to restricting an author from closing a review issue.
... View more
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
10-26-2015
07:23 PM
Submitted by
CapocDa
on
10-26-2015
07:23 PM
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
10-01-2015
01:05 PM
Submitted by
JacobHume
on
10-01-2015
01:05 PM
on
10-01-2015
01:05 PM
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.
... View more
Status:
Community Feedback Requested
Submitted on
05-14-2015
02:09 PM
Submitted by
undees
on
05-14-2015
02:09 PM
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?
... View more
