Help us improve Gearset

Welcome to the Gearset feedback forum. We love getting feedback from our users on how we can make Gearset even better.

Post your ideas and vote for others – let us know what’s important to you. We’re keen to hear about product improvements, new features, and bug fixes alike. We check this forum regularly and will keep ideas updated with their current status. If you need any further support, please contact us at team@gearset.com.

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback
  1. 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).

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Problem analysis and deployment failures  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  2. 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

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Problem analysis and deployment failures  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  3. 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

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Problem analysis and deployment failures  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  4. 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

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Problem analysis and deployment failures  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  5. Better Targeted Static Code Analysis Feedback Surpression

    Currently, if I want to suppress errors from static analysis, the suppression seems to be all-or-none at the class level.

    I would prefer to suppress only the specific errors when they happen.
    (e.g. in the method or in the line.)

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Hi!

    Our static code analysis is built on PMD. Currently, the only error suppression that works with Apex code in PMD is the `@SuppressWarnings` annotation. (This was introduced for Apex in PMD version 6.0.0). As you say, you can suppress all rules, or specific rules, at the class level, but can’t make more fine grained suppressions, unfortunately.

    There are other methods of suppressing errors within PMD for other languages, but these don’t currently work with Apex. We’ll keep an eye on future versions of PMD to see if they introduce new methods of suppressing warnings for Apex code.

  6. New analyzer check - changing field type on a custom metadata type (mdt) field

    Turns out the following can't be done:

    Change the type of a xxxmdt.Fooc (e.g. from Number to Text)

    While the Force.com UI doesn't let you do this directly, you can do indirectly by deleting the Foo__c, then adding it back with a new field type. Your sandbox is a-ok with this

    But if you try to deploy, SFDC won't let you deploy and you get this error: "This field is on an object that doesn’t support field type conversion."

    Gearset Analyzer could check this by comparing source to target and give you a nice warning. Would save the…

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Problem analysis and deployment failures  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  7. Error while deploying dashboard component using Changeset / Gearset / ANT

    This is a common error received during deployments:

    Error: Metric, gauge, or table dashboard component missing indicatorLowColor attribute (line 70, column 33)

    This is a suggestion to Gearset team for there feature Deployment analysis if they would pick this error in advance before deployment.

    Observation: This issue occurs when the Dashboard is created in Lightning. (I cannot confirm though)

    Resolution:

    Downloaded package.xml and component

    Basically, after I pulled the dashboard metadata from source org, I opened it and found the
    <componentType>Table</componentType> tag, and right under it I added this:

    <indicatorHighColor>#00716B</indicatorHighColor>
    <indicatorMiddleColor>#ffb75d</indicatorMiddleColor>
    <indicatorLowColor>#C23934</indicatorLowColor>

    After this change I managed to deploy everything…

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  8. Echo source/target on Resolve Missing Dependencies page

    If you are using Gearset to deploy between multiple orgs/repos, you may find you have launched the analyzer on multiple tabs within the browser (or across browsers). Since this operation takes some minutes, when the page 'Resolve mIssing Dependencies' appears, you get no clue as to the source/target. In today's multi-tasking life of a developer, it is easy to get lost and forget which tab was for which deployment.

    Basically, the principle should be to echo the source/target in the header of all pages/dialogs - especially if the operation to arrive at that page is not 'instant' wherein the user…

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  9. Avoid spurious Analyzer message for Permissions on required fields

    If you deploy permissions for, say Task.Type, Gearset deployment analyzer displays: "Exclude the following from the deployment - Field permissions for fields that are probably required fields on the target"

    Field Task.Type (V39) is not a required field. If one ignores the suggested exclusion, permissions deploy just fine.

    Elimination of spurious analyzer warnings increases utility of the remaining analyzer messages that are the raison d'etre of Gearset

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  10. Add an analyzer/repair option for ConnectedApps w/ ConsumerKeys

    ConnectedApps are part of the Default 64 metadata set. yet if you try to deploy a ConnectedApp that uses a ConsumerKey in the source org, you will get a deployment error either "The consumer key is already taken" if target org has that ConnectedApp already or "You cannot provide a Consumer Key" if a new ConnectedApp

    Since the deployment is going to fail, there should be a Gearset Analyzer that checks for this and removes from the deployment

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  11. Clarify installation of managed packages and allow opt-out

    It appears that if there are dependencies in the deployment that require a Managed Package to be installed/updated, that package is automatically installed/updated before the deployment takes place.

    This is great, but it needs more clarity and control for the user.

    It would be nice to know if Managed Packages are going to be installed as the result of a deployment, and if so, opt-in or opt-out of that process. It would be great if opting-out also displayed the related metadata with the dependency so those could be excluded as well.

    This may also avert some errors where metadata needs…

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

1 3 Next →
  • Don't see your idea?

Feedback and Knowledge Base