Help us improve Gearset
We love getting feedback from our users on how we can make Gearset even better. Post your ideas for improvements, new features, and bug fixes alike, and vote for others – let us know what’s important to you.
74 results found
-
Add Analyzer to Warn/Remove Named Credentials with Passwords
Currently, attempting to deploy a named credential will fail as a "password is required for the specified authentication protocol".
This can mean manual work if you have a lot of CI deployment jobs to sandboxes or annoyance if you expected to be able to deploy it.
It'd be great if an analyzer existed that would alert/warn the user about it going to fail and unable to be deployed (suggest removing it from the package)
4 votes -
1 vote
-
Don't Delete Managed Package's object permissions from Permission Sets in CI jobs
In a CI job, using source control as the source and including deleted items, you can run into an issue where objects from managed packages show as "deleted" in terms of custom object permissions from permission sets that have access to them. This can occur for permission sets designed to give access to managed package features or if you have a permission set with "View all data" or a system permission that gives them access to all objects in some capacity (read, write).
Ideally, we wouldn't have to include managed package object permissions into Source Control (likewise, Gearset suggests only…
1 vote -
Workflow failed to deploy without error, due to standard object dependency
In a CI job : Validation shown as success & Deployment shown as success. But actually no workflow deployed due to it being removed in the Problem Analyser.
The Problem Analyser triggered due to the (standard) object, that the workflow depends on, not being in the comparison results.
In a traditional deployments object is not needed to deploy WF, that too standard object. I feel it is a gap - problem analysers should never fire on object dependency.
1 vote -
Workflow failed to deploy without error, due to standard object dependency
CI job : Validation shown as success & Deployment shown as success.. but actually no WF deployed. Saying Opportunity object doesn't exist in target just because it was not selected in the components. in a traditional deployments object is not needed to deploy WF, that too standard object. I feel it is a gap.
1 vote -
Report Missing Dependencies on Lightning pages
Right now, if you include a lightning page in a deployment and do not include any of the components on the page (list view, report chart, etc), the problem analyzer finds no issue with it.
Even if the report is not in the target or is included in the compare, the analyzer always finds no issue with the lightning page.
It'd be great to have it function like other metadata where it would alert you to missing components in your package (by suggesting to include all referenced list views, reports, etc on the lightning page).
4 votes -
Excluding Record Type Problem Analyzer Should Behave the Same Across Metadata (Layout Permissions, Custom Object Permissions)
In the situation where a repository is the source and an org is the target, there may be a situation where a record type doesn't exist in the repository but references in the layout permissions and custom object permissions do still exist.
Currently, the problem analyzer will catch the custom object permissions and ask you to remove the references to the record type that doesn't exist in the target.
However, it doesn't catch the layout permissions and the deployment could fail with an invalid reference.
In the absence of the record type in the repository, the "Problem Analyzer for excluding…
1 vote -
Include Apex classes imported into LWC
Ensure that Apex Classes imported in LWC javascript files are included in dependencies.
2 votes -
Warning On Missing Custom Metadata Field
I had a deployment fail today due to a difference between a custom metadata type's definition in the source org vs the destination. The source had two extra fields that the destination did not have. This cause the metadata record deployment to fail, because two extra values were included in the deployment which did not have corresponding fields in the destination. Because the fields were for a custom metadata package, I was unable to (easily) add the fields into the destination org.
I'd like to see a way to suppress custom metadata values. This may be solvable through the inline…
1 vote -
Save deployment analysis suggestions and list of test classes
In order to make deployments more repeatable between orgs please allow a way to save the selection of deployment analysis suggestions an d list of test classes with a package. With a large package it can be difficult having to document or remember the same selections used in deployment to UAT org for Production deployment.
5 votes -
Possibility to add automatically added metadata to the comparison after a failed deployment
The dependency crawler that GearSet offers is one of its biggest strengths. A lot of manual labor can vanish at the click of the button. Best example would be the addition of all relevant Picklist fields when a Record Type is added to the Selected Items.
Sometimes deployments still fail, and in particularly big orgs the dependency crawl takes ages, each time I have to rerun the problem analysis.
A way to add the metadata that was auto-added prior to the deployment to the list of Selected Items to make future analysis faster would be greatly appreciated.
1 vote -
Static Code Analysis for JavaScript Components
It would be great if Gearset could run static code analysis on JavaScript as well as Apex when deploying Lightning Components.
6 votes -
Remove the "run as specific user" completely from the dashboard prior to deployment (set the options to "Run as
Add during problem analysis:
Remove the "run as specific user" completely from the dashboard prior to deployment (set the options to "Run as logged-in user"). Deploy, then change it back to whatever you need. Based on https://developer.salesforce.com/forums/?id=906F0000000DCJPIA4
3 votes -
Improve the UI around deployment objects dependent on objects not in the comparison
Deployment of certain types of objects requires that other objects on which they are dependent be included in the deployment. If the needed objects have not been included in the selected items and they are not part of the comparison, Gearset will display the following message:
Problem: Some itmes reference componnents that were not downloaded from either the source or the target.
Solution: Removing the elements that reference missing components from the affected items will make the deployment more likely to succeed.
Below this is displayed a table with a column of checkboxes at the left and three additional columns:…
1 vote -
Display "No Difference" metadata sources on Deployment Summary page
On the "Deployment Summary Page" it would be great to add a column to the list of metadata components added which shows for the "No Difference" items showing the source piece(s) of metadata which is causing this "No Difference" to be included.
This would dramatically help in the narrowing down of why a piece of metadata is included - especially if that piece of "No Difference" is a managed package and cannot be altered. In a large deployment, trying to identify a root cause for why a component was added is quite difficult. Simply giving a way to track back…
1 vote -
Improve error handling for invalid XML metadata files
Currently, when there is an error with an XML metadata file (usually introduced by git merges), Gearset will produce an error, either in the Initializing Comparison, or Checking Deployment stages, stating simply that "An unknown error occurred."
If Gearset instead ran the XML from source control through an XML validator using the Partner WSDL XMLSchema, then we could get file-level validation errors if the XML doesn't conform to what Salesforce's Metadata API will accept.
e.g.:
$ xmlstarlet val -e -s ~/Downloads/salesforce-schema.xml force-app/main/default/profiles/Marketing.profile-meta.xml
force-app/main/default/profiles/Marketing.profile-meta.xml:17108.15: Element '{http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata}field': This element is not expected.
force-app/main/default/profiles/Marketing.profile-meta.xml - invalid1 vote -
Suppress irrelevant Suggested Fixes when deploying to git
The problem analysis comes up with a number of Suggested Fixes which may make sense for improving Salesforce deployments, but which are unproductive when applied to git deployments.
For example, the suggestion to remove TASK.WHAT_NAME, or to omit Standard Objects, will only serve to create a git repo which is an inaccurate reflection of the source org. Each time we deploy to that git repo, we will continue to have the same changes to select or omit, since the repo is missing objects and fields from the source org.
When the deployment target is a git repo, all suggested fixes…
6 votes -
Deployment Notes Persist on Failure
When a deployment fails, deployment notes are sometimes wiped, and it is laborious to retype them - sometimes, I'll copy and paste to Notepad before deploying because I know I'm going to have to type them again. Notes should persist, or at least be configurable, from one comparison run through successful deployment.
2 votes -
Better handle Shares on Report and Dashboard Folders in pre-validation
during the pre-validation of a deployment, validate that the shares exist for report and dashboard folders. Currently if they do not exist in the target they fail during deployment. Only option today is to clean them up after error in source org and then redeploy. Instead, it would be useful if gearset removed them during the pre-validation.
1 vote -
Queue Deployments
Current State:
A few devs have work in their individual sandboxes that are ready to be pushed to the higher .dev sandbox org
1st Dev deploys work to .dev
2nd Dev deployment fails because org is locked
Idea:
A few devs have work in their individual sandboxes that are ready to be pushed to the higher .dev sandbox org
1st Dev deploys work to .dev
2nd Dev deployment is queued up, 2nd Dev will be notified via email/browser when queued deployment has started
3 votes
- Don't see your idea?