Reference the Line of Another File in the Same Review
In the chat box of file foo.cc I would like to reference a specific line in file bar.cc.For example, I have bar.cc:line 12 written in my code collab chat box. In this case, code-collab only recognizes and allows the jump to bar.cc, but not to the line. I would like a featurewhere a designer canwrite a reference to line 12 in bar.cc and Collaborator automatically auto-links the to the correct line.
Allow "messages from the administrator" to be accepted and hidden to increase vertical space
We use the "Message from the administrator" feature to show important information to users about the type of data they can use Collaborator for, however in v11.3.11301 the message is always present at the top of the screen. There is no way for a user to hide the message and it consumes valuable screen real-estate. Many of our users review portrait format documents on landscape screens and so being able to hide or move anything that prevents the use of the full vertical size of the monitor would bebeneficial. Please provide an option for users to be able to read, accept and hide the message upon each login. Better still, provide an option to do that and also to hide/move/shrink the horizontal menu bars. Thanks!
document compare
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.Allow Admins to close reviews
Bringing back an old thread - I'd like anyone with Admin privileges to be able to move a review to Completed. We've had several instances where someone has left the company, or is on extended leave, and their roles is required to move a review to completed. On solution is to shuffle roles - while that will allow a review to close, it's "not right". If the author of a document is out sick - yes I can assign the author role to someone else - but now you are fudging the review records in order to get the closure. Later when an auditor comes in we have to give a song and dance as to why the roles in the review don't represent the actual roles the staff members have. We shouldn't need to alter the records to move things forward. The review is more than a record of defects - it's a record of who did what, and we shouldn't need to compromise that to get around a technical glitch.
Git Repository Name on review with multiple git repository.
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!
Make excluding many files from a review easier
Rather than having to click on each file to exclude it would be good if we could exclude content by folder, by file filter, by holding down the shift key and selecting 15 files at once. Things that allow working with and excluding large lists of files easier and less time consuming to ensure just the essential files are included in any review. Not much thought or effort has been put into the current mechanism.Inability to delete an Upload to Review Materials due to comments
I have searched all the documentation and conversations and understand that an upload to the Review Materials can not be deleted if there is a comment or defect in any one of the files, so I have no question about that. But I do have a comment about that. That is the most short-sighted and ridiculous rule. The idea that a responsible Administrator can not correct a Review is extremely frustrating. What has happened is in a Review with about 10 changed files, the author in attempting to correct an error in his code erroneously uploaded a branch with hundreds of changed files. Now we are stuck with this huge set of changes - NOT because someone has commented on this new upload, but because someone had previously commented on one of the files in that upload, which collaborator so conveniently carries over to the new upload. Of course we uploaded the correct set of files afterword, BUT have had to put up an overall comment, which we can only HOPE that our Reviewers will see, to tell everyone to ignore uploads before a certain date. If they don't notice this message then they'll spend hours reviewing incorrect code changes. So we need to go to an outside method to email everyone to be careful about this review because Collaborator wont allow us to logically control our own review. The idea that "Smartbear" doesn't think we are smart enough for an Administrator to surgically edit a Review to correct errors feels like being managed by a helicopter parent. This along with several other issues like not being able to control the placement of User Defined Fields (making our Review forms haphazard and confusing), an inability to create Reports in our own format, and even the fact that Notes for a file are displayed in a Center Justified column (so that short notes can't be seen at all because they are sitting out in the middle of someone else's 3 sentence notes). That such basic functions are out of our control becomes very annoying. Despite the time and effort we have spent converting to and learning Code Collaborator many people are starting to recognize that there are other options out there that might be more flexible.
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.
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 uploadHidden or read-only Review Custom Fields
We have developed an integration from a document-management system that uses one review custom field to store foreign document id and version information. When the review is created this information is provided from the other system through the JSON API. Obviously we do not want the GUI Client users to change this field, but currently Collaborator does not allow this. To make life easier in this kind of use cases, I propose Collaborator admin section to have following extra (boolean) settings for review custom fields: hidden, only to be modified/read through the API read-only, visible in GUI, butmodifiable only through the API