Skip to content

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.

If you need any further support, please contact us at team@gearset.com.

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

65 results found

  1. Analyzer enhancement - detect missing ContentAsset in CustomApplication

    Given this XML in CustomApplication

    <CustomApplication xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
    <brand>
    <headerColor>#0070D2</headerColor>
    <logo>MyLogo</logo>
    <logoVersion>1</logoVersion>
    <shouldOverrideOrgTheme>false</shouldOverrideOrgTheme>
    </brand>

    If user forgets to select Content Asset MyLogo, Analyzer should detect.

    3 votes

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  2. When Problem Analyzer adds Fields, Add Profile Permissions Too

    Currently the problem analyzer will identify missing fields. However, it doesn't prompt or allow you to add the permissions for the fields. So, you either have to go back, manually add all fields as Selected, or push the package and then go back manually and add permissions for all fields. It should prompt to add both the fields and the permissions.

    2 votes

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  3. Analyzer: Duplicate child relationship name detection

    Use case -

    target org has child object O lookup field F1 with childRelationship = Foo
    source org has child object O lookup field F2 with childRelationship = Foo

    If you deploy, SFDC tells you that there is already a Child Relationship Foo on O

    Analyzer could detect this and warn developer before deployment

    2 votes

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  4. Bring back the Suggested Fixes in Problem Analyzer to suggest permissions for fields when moving a new field.

    Previously if you selected to migrate a field, Problem Analyzer would suggest the permissions. Now it only shows up on Warnings tab. This forces you to go back to the Comparison and individually find the permissions for each field. It should include these as Suggested Fixes. Additionally, if a field is listed as a Suggested Fix, the permissions for that field should be included as Suggested Fixes as well.

    2 votes

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  5. edit problem analyser template

    There should be an ability to edit the existing Problem Analyser Template. Else, one has to create the whole template again, re-do the changes on the template and then re-assign on all the existing Jobs which should use that template.
    It is definitely going to save a lot of time and be beneficial overall.

    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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  6. Validation job when PRs are raised

    Requirement :
    Provide option to create a CI Validation Job only with "Validate pull requests targeting the source branch" and keep "Run Job" dropdown as optional .

    As Of Now :
    When we raise a PR, it initiates feature branch validation ( cos, we enabled "Validate pull requests targeting the source branch" ), and after that when we merge feature-branch to target branch, it re-initiates another validation job.
    For us, it's like similar validation is running twice on different events from which we can't opt out.

    Pros :

    We can handle when to validate a feature branch, instead of bundling…

    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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  7. Allow Owner role to enable delegated org access of other users

    If another user doesn't already have delegated access granted and their is a deployment with an issue there is no way for someone else to rollback the deployment and no way to override it.

    3 votes

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  8. Support deployment of password and session policies via Gearset

    According to the Salesforce developer link https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=000349181&type=1

    Password and Session policies include a numeric code which is equal to a epoc timestamp. This timestamp will be different in each org. In order for deployment to succeed, the timestamp code in the metadata name must match the target org. Since all orgs are different, there isn't an automatic way to do this.

    Please create a feature in gearset that will automatically replace the timestamp numeric code with that of the target org so that we can use gearset to deploy password and sessions policies.

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  9. Spurious analyzer; Required fields on target when deploying Custom Field Permission to a Permission Set

    If you deploy Custom Field Permissions for fields such as Task.ActivityDate or Task.WhatId to a Permission Set, the Gearset Analyzer auto-checks Do Not Deploy and shows this message: "Some field permissions in the deployment are for fields that Gearset thinks are required fields on the target side. Field permissions cannot be set for required fields."

    While this is a useful message when deploying Custom Field Permissions to a Profile, it is not a useful message when deploying to a Permission Set as that Permission Set might be used in conjunction with Profile "Minimum Access - Salesforce". If you are using…

    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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  10. Warn if source version is greater than the version of the target org.

    Often, salesforce will deploy the latest API version to sandbox orgs before production orgs. Therefore it's easy to use API version 55 in your sandbox and then get a failure message when you try to deploy it to your production org which is at version 54. Unfortunately, you have to start to validate your deploy before you get this message. This could be a pre-deployment issue that you can notified right away.

    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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  11. Add or ignore parts of XML after the comparison to ignore other users changes

    If there are multiple users making changing the metadata in Salesforce and when one has to deploy their changes, it is not possible to pick the changes that are specific to one person, For this we have to go to VS code and use git patch mode to add only the necessary changes for a specific user. If we have an option to edit the xml after the comparision and pick only necessary pieces and deploy it to next org will save time and also switching between multiple orgs. Currently the comparison editor is read only mode.

    7 votes

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  12. Analyzer message when recordtype is deleted but still referenced in listview filter

    There are occasions where you might have a ListView filter that looks like:

    Opportunity.RecordType equals Type1,Type2,Type3

    When you delete rectype Type2, the ListView filter changes to:

    Opportunity.RecordType equals Type1,0123600000055CZAAY,Type3 in the source org

    The analyzer should tell you that your source org is corrupted.

    Would apply to deletion of recordType and all included metadata type components that allow for filtering of recordtypes: Workflow, Criteria-based-sharing, Reports, ListViews, etc.

    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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  13. Expose Salesforce Validation Errors within Github PR

    Currently when a PR Validation fails (Deploy CI Job with Validate Target setting turned on), the user can click the Gearset "Details" link to go into Gearset to see the exact error.

    Many of our devs use VS Code and Github for their daily work and only rely on Gearset for the CI job. Having them jump into Gearset just to see the error is time consuming and not very intuitive for them. Sure we can find the same errors within the target org of the CI, but at that point the list of validations is large and it's hard…

    8 votes

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  14. Allow owners to setup delegated org access of members

    Without already having delegated access granted there is no way to rollback a deployment from another user. There should be a permission to override this.

    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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  15. Provide help link/button on each analyzer problem pane with specifiec discussion

    Suggestion
    In "Problem Analysis" page, the problems indicated and solutions are not necessarily obvious and understandable.

    The suggestion to read more about the analysers in the user guide is in the case I'm facing an enormous challenge.

    Copy and paste the problem into your search mechanism brings back endless answers - not one used the wording in the problem statement!.

    Here's an idea, have a button/link with each problem that take one to the user guide section (or other documentation) exploring the problem.

    No hunting for answers as the 1st choice to figure out what your product is saying. It's…

    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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  16. Apply certain PA outputs back to the comparison as a "quick fix"

    The main example where I have wished for this pretty strongly is the "missing permissions" PA. This is the one that warns "not all permissions are included in the deployment". It would be useful to be able to go from that PA to a view where one could either add all the missing permissions in one go, or do so selectively by profile or permission set. Right now one has to screen scrape the output, paste it into a text file, go back into the comparison and laboriously hunt through the comparison to find the missing nodes, then add them.

    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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  17. Offer the ability to set the ignorewarnings flag on an individual "Compare and Deploy" basis.

    Would like to see the ability to set the IgnoreWarnings as an override for an individual Compare and deploy, in addition to at the global level. Occasionally, we will do a community deploy, for example, that returns a warning about a page that includes a Dashboard component, with the warning that the Dashboard ID or the Filter ID might not exist in the target environment. Once we see those errors in the validation results, it would be convenient to rerun the deploy, and ignore those warnings. Possibly similar to how the Test execution options are set on the Deploy button…

    2 votes

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  18. Move Failed Tests before Passed Tests when deployment Fails

    Hi,

    I would love to see the Failed tests to be listed above the Passed tests in case deployment fails.

    Right now User has to always scroll down at the list (as you are usually not interested on what has Passed rather what Failed).

    Also this shouold be super simple to implement :)

    Thank you & keep up the good work,
    Cheers,
    O.

    2 votes

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  19. Deploy first fields where <trackHistory> was changed from true to false.

    Deploy first fields where <trackHistory> was changed from true to false.
    I am currently deploying fields changes and getting error that too many fields are tracked because fields with true ale deployed first.

    3 votes

    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

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
  20. Provide output from Gearset during the validation in terms of what tests were being run

    I had unit testing jobs running ALL tests in source (full sandbox) and target (production) org - resulting in 80% and 79% test coverage. However, when I started to deploy my changes - the validation failed because test coverage was only 74%. Finally, after a few days, I figured it out.

    I was just simply clicking "Validate" (i.e., did not choose specific tests). In the past - that ran "all tests". But something seems to have changed. When I picked "choose tests", about half the tests in my org were "automatically selected". I manually selected all other tests - effectively…

    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 →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
← Previous 1 3 4
  • Don't see your idea?

Feedback and Knowledge Base