Showing ideas with status Implemented.
Show all ideas
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
03-23-2017
02:32 PM
Submitted by
MaryConti
on
03-23-2017
02:32 PM
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.
... View more
We're human. We make mistakes. And some of us are fastidious. I hate seeing files which were wrongly uploaded or obsolete in my list of files to review. Also, most of us like to be efficient. We don't want to have to delete our whole uploaded file list just to clean up a few files. We should be allowed to delete individual review uploads. You have a nice tool, but it is frustrating not to be able to do so.
... View more
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
10-04-2018
09:00 AM
Submitted by
rgundogmus
on
10-04-2018
09:00 AM
Could you add multiple selection of Checklist Templates for a Review Template? (Example: In Collaborator, multiple custom fields can be choosen in a review template.)
... View more
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
08-02-2016
02:36 AM
Submitted by
simpleuser
on
08-02-2016
02:36 AM
Would be great if the code collaborator was supplied in a Docker container with configuration options to trivialize the spin up of a new instance and the upgrade to a new server version.
... View more
See more ideas labeled with:
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
08-11-2015
01:15 PM
Submitted by
photoshopguy
on
08-11-2015
01:15 PM
I want to be able to edit or completely delete (with no trace) comments and defects I have added. Strikout is not a good alternative; it wastes everyone's time to look at something that should have been deleted. The ability to edit or cleanly delete previously entered text is near-universal in systems that store user-entered text, and there are many good reasons for this. In addition to those universally applicable reasons, the CC interface makes it easy to attach a comment or defect to the wrong line,. Further, the basic model of file-at-a-time reviewing with no global search or symbol lookup makes it difficult to review large or multi-file changes. When reviewing such changes, I often make comments that become moot when later functions or files are examined. I'm then reduced to either entering a later "never mind" comment (strikeout is only a slight improvement, because most authors are still going to waste time reding it) and/or effectively implementing my own "undo" by keeping all my comments and defects in a separate text file until I'm completely done, then going back in a second pass and actually entering them.
... View more
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
07-14-2015
10:36 AM
Submitted by
rmcfatter
on
07-14-2015
10:36 AM
Collaborator (and all Web-based tools, really) should retire any use of Adobe Flash. The same functionality is now available natively in standards-compliant HTML5 browsers, which are commonplace at this time. Flash Player is a never-ending source of security issues, causes grief for IT administrators, and is constantly pining for updates. If it weren't for Collaborator, I could remove the flash plugin from my system entirely and enjoy improved security.
... View more
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
02-27-2015
08:00 AM
Submitted by
CltrAltDelicius
on
02-27-2015
08:00 AM
Hi, the authentication via LDAP is a nice feature to organize the user registration in a world-wide environment by use of several AD groups that can be administered business-unit-specific. Unfortunately the user is not known in Collaborator until his/her first log in. This results in three steps: 1. Adding to AD group 2. User must log in 3. Project admin can add user to group Each step results in a latency and communication overhead between the admin and the user. It would be great to have a button in Collaborator's user management panel like "sync with configured AD group xy" (similar to RTC for example).
... View more
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
10-20-2016
06:50 AM
Submitted by
MaryConti
on
10-20-2016
06:50 AM
I guess there is a way to pull it from the API, but that is messy. We have Participant Custom Fields that we use, and want to get the information filled in those fields (or not) per participant in the reviews.
... View more
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
07-12-2017
11:58 AM
Submitted by
AlexeyKryuchkov
on
07-12-2017
11:58 AM
on
07-12-2017
11:58 AM
Submitted on behalf of Avinash Ravikumar (Wipro Limited).
... View more
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
10-04-2018
08:56 AM
Submitted by
rgundogmus
on
10-04-2018
08:56 AM
In the role template, I encountered some problems.
Cases:
1- When choose No to "Allowed to modify review General Information", the role that assigned No, could not change checklist part.
2- When choose Yes to "Allowed to modify review General Information", the role can change Review Template, group, participant.
Could you separate the permissions of General Information as "Allowed to modify Checklists", "Allowed to modify Review Information" and "Allowed to modify Participant"?
... View more
In many (or most) cases our users want to include cell formatting when reviewing Excel spreadsheets, because they become fairly unreadable with the formatting stripped out in the diff viewer. This limitation means that either: The author has to format the spreadsheet nicely for printing and save as PDF or use print to review, which can be a lot of effort, particularly when there are multiple sheets. The reviewer has to download the file in Excel, and go back and forth between Excel and the collaborator web page to log comments. Because the Excel sheet is unformatted, and it's extra work to find the specific cell, the comments will tend to be logged in the 'general chat' area of the review.
... View more
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.
... View more
0
Kudos
We would like to copy templates and role configurations instead of having to update all default settings. This would speed up our process of adding new groups when customizations are required.
... View more
See more ideas labeled with:
0
Kudos
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
07-13-2022
06:58 AM
Submitted by
IanStroud
on
07-13-2022
06:58 AM
see https://community.smartbear.com/t5/Collaborator-Questions/Collaborator-13-12-131200-miss-draws-text-panes-on-Firefox/m-p/236254/emcs_t/S2h8ZW1haWx8dG9waWNfc3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ufEw1Sk0wSjU1NVZIUk1afDIzNjI1NHxTVUJTQ1JJUFRJT05TfGhL#M2825 Suggestions: 1. Properly test your systems with all supported browsers. 2. Monitor the community questions and step in when a bug is reported OR 3. Provide a proper bug reporting mechanism so the issues can be raised by users.
... View more
0
Kudos
It would be great if this setting in the roles area could include a selection of 'all the participants with this role' we have a role that is required. However sometimes we need to have 2 (or more) people with this role participate. There is no way to configure the tool to say everyone on the review with this role needs to participate.
... View more
See more ideas labeled with:
0
Kudos
There are some workflows that require file versions to be in the name of the file. Collaborator has no way of recognizing this, causing extra load on our team to rename and track the files. It would be advantageous to allow some method of telling collaborator that file XXXX_01.txt is the next version of XXXX_00.txt. perhaps this can be a setting per review, or per file, that the revision number is in the name?
... View more
0
Kudos
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
01-08-2021
02:15 AM
Submitted by
steveAtSea
on
01-08-2021
02:15 AM
The review tool allows the reviewer to compare two revisions of the document, but it would be good if we could select one of the panes to view the revision of a file that the pin was originally added to. This would allow the reviewer to compare the original issue to the current state.
... View more
0
Kudos
Status:
Implemented
Submitted on
01-07-2021
09:35 AM
Submitted by
soapuser8
on
01-07-2021
09:35 AM
During the planning/authoring phase, users can accidentally upload unwanted files. Currently users can only delete the whole change list to start over again. It would be nice to allow users to just delete specific files.
... View more
0
Kudos
I have a number of teams developing mobile applications who are complaining about the lack of proper syntax highlighting for those languages: Swift and Kotlin. Reviews are difficult to do which makes Collaborator less useful for them. Are there plans to add highlighting for these? I don't see previous requests for them here.
... View more
See more ideas labeled with:
0
Kudos
When configuring GitHub or GitLab in Remote System Integration, a branch(es) to track must be entered if "master" isn't the only branch you want to track. This controls which branches targeted for a merge as part of a pull/merge request will automatically create Collaborator reviews. In a pretty common git workflow, release branches are created for use as hardening/stable branches in addition to the mainline branch. If automatic Collaborator reviews based on pull/merge requests against these release/stability branches are also desired, they have to be included in the Remote System Integration list for the repo they're in. In our use case, we create a branch "rel_v##.##" for our hardening and release candidates as we're getting close to release. This branch is named and numbered related to the specific release number. That means we currently need to modify the Remote System Integration for our repositories every time we approach release. If glob or regex patterns could be specified for the Remote System Integration branches to track (at least for GitHub and GitLab), it would resolve the problem of constantly having to modify the Remote System Integration setting for a number or repos. As long as a consistent naming convention was used for branches, those branches that should be tracked could be specified once as a pattern and then never need to be updated again.
... View more