Add Perforce integration to Collaborator Visual Studio plugin
Submitting a feature request on behalf of Symantec Corp: There is no possibility to add a Perforce SCM repository in Collaborator Visual Studio plugin at this moment. The idea is to add Perforce SCM support to Collaborator Visual Studio plugin to make it possible.Implement sync of GitHub pull request reviewers and Collaborator reviewers
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.
AWS Code Commit Support
Howdy, Please add Code Collaborator support for AWS Code Commit repository integrations to the web client. Example of this current functionality can be found here: https://support.smartbear.com/collaborator/docs/source-control/git.html https://support.smartbear.com/collaborator/docs/source-control/repo-hosting/index.html In the same way that Github, Bitbucket, and Azure can easily be integrated to the Collaborator, I would like for this process to also function with AWS Code Commit Repos. I may currently use Code Collab and AWS Code Commit via the client gui and local changes, but I would also like to have direct repo integration like the hosted repos do. Thanks.Log all activities of users and admins in Collaborator
In a Large enterprise there will be multiple admins. To track who has done what, Admin should be able to get the log of all users activities. Like, Disabling and Enabling review templates, Disabling and enabling users or adding users etc. In simple terms a log should be generated for every activity happens in Collaborator through all the ways. ex: GUI, API, Collab client, Thirdpart clients, Commands etc.
Separate Remote Repository Integration accounts from repositories themselves
When integrating with GitHub and GitLab, a separate Remote System Integration must be added for each project/repository. However GitHub and GitLab operate with a single account list per installation instance, and then a member filter per project/repository. This results in users needing to repeat identical username information for every repository/project the Collaborator instance is integrated with. Instead, the Remote Repository Integration could separate systems from repositories/projects. A "System" would be a configurable list that would present to the Users as needing their username to match. Repositories/Projects would look like what is currently provided, for Remote Repository Integration, but would have a mandatory "System" drop down to select which of the configured "System"s the repository is associated with. If a specific repository needs slightly different settings from the rest of the repositories in it's existing "System", a new "System" could be added with those variations and selected as the associated "System" for that one repository's configuration. In most cases, a number of repositories are hosted in the same GitHub or GitLab instance. When Collaborator is used as the primary review tool, it's likely many or all of the repositories will be integrated with Collaborator under only a few different credential settings (depending on how many different GitLab and/or GitHub instances exist). In our current use case, we have almost 40 repositories hosted on only two GitLab instances. That means when we complete our integration, each user will have to enter one of only two different usernames almost 40 times. Even though we have Single Sign On via Active Directory being used for Collaborator and both GitLab instances, GitLab has decided usernames are the human readable version of a user's name as listed in their profile, so no automatic matching can easily occur (all GitLab's fault).Manually specified file version selector names when uploaded from client via Git
Problem: I upload changes as a commit range in git between a reference branch (master) and my current HEAD. I then later need to rebase my current HEAD against an updated reference branch (master) and re-upload the changes. It cannot be differentiated in the file version selector during a review which versions of the file are reference branch (master) and which are HEAD versions. Generically, client tool uploaded differences from git commit ranges automatically label all versions of files as seen in file version selector drop down, with check-in time and non-human readable git object hash (not commit hash) only. Rebasing changes against the latest version of the reference branch, or merging the latest version of the reference branch into the changes, between a first and second upload to a review causes the "before" version from the reference branch to be different during the second uploaded of files and have a newer timestamp than the "after" version of the file from the first upload. The "before" versions therefore can't be differentiated from the "after" versions in the drop down. Solution: Add optional command line argument for "addgitdiffs" that will allow user specified names to be added to the before and after versions of all files included in the commit range. Conflicting names are automatically appended with standard "(1)", "(2)", etc for a given file based on upload order. For example, if I have changes on a "work" branch that originally forked from "master" branch and changed fileA and fileB, my upload command would be ccollab addgitdiffs --before-name="master" --after-name="work" ask master...work which would upload all changes made on the work branch since it split from master by uploading fileA and fileB from the commit on the master branch right before the work branch split, and fileA and fileB from the head of the work branch (currently). The extra arguments would add labeling for all the files from master as "master" and those coming from the work branch as "work" (new). When my review continues for a while and I need to rebase my work branch against the since-updated master branch I'll need to re-upload my changes relative to the new reference point on the master branch. Running the same command as before accomplishes that but causes a problem. When the differences in fileA are viewed without this feature, what's seen in the file version selector drop down is (larger numbers with the timestamps indicate newer timestamps): "<git object hash> <commit timestamp 1>" <---- from master branch in first upload "<git object hash> <commit timestamp 2>" <---- from work branch in first upload "<git object hash> <commit timestamp 3>" <---- from master branch in second upload "<git object hash> <commit timestamp 4>" <---- from work branch in second upload With the recommended feature this list becomes much more clear: "master <git object hash> <commit timestamp 1>" <---- from master branch in first upload "work <git object hash> <commit timestamp 2>" <---- from work branch in first upload "master(1) <git object hash> <commit timestamp 3>" <---- from master branch in second upload "work(1) <git object hash> <commit timestamp 4>" <---- from work branch in second uploadRenamed/moved file shown in Review Materials
Indicate either in the Review Materials overview, or in the file differences view when a file has been moved or renamed. This information is tracked by a number of Version Control systems, and clearly indicated when examining the differences between commits/check-ins. Currently a moved or renamed file will show up as completely removed from the old location (all contents removed) and completely added to the new location (all contents added). If changes were also made within the file in the same range of commits/check-ins under review, they can't be differentiated. As a possible implementation, both the old and new file names in the Review Materials overview could link to the same file differences view where the before and after file names are listed as different at the top of the window (where there's currently only one center-aligned file name as of 11.0.11000).
