1140 results found

1. Allow Monitoring Jobs on Source Code Repositories

   Currently, Enterprise users can create monitoring jobs on sandboxes, so that they may be notified when a sandbox's metadata changes. It'd be great to be able to perform the same monitoring action against source code repositories (GitHub!).

   An example use case would be detecting when undesired metadata types enter into the repository. This is important because CI jobs will fail on certain metadata types, so we want to ensure that they never make it into source to begin with. Additionally, our business has decided that some metadata types should never be captured into source.

   10 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   1 comment  ·  Monitoring and reporting  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

2. Allow custom rules in PMD

   PMD support is great, but it would also be useful to be able to have a set of custom rules for my team

   e.g. we have a code library of classes that they ought to use instead of coding their own solutions every time. Some of these cases could be spotted by a PMD rule, so it would be great to be able to add my own rules for this.

   9 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   1 comment  ·  Problem analysis and deployment failures  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

3. Extend Jira Cloud Integration to Releases and Bitbucket

   We do the majority of our management via Jira and have it linked to Bitbucket and our test system so that we can manage everything via Jira. It would be great to extend the current integrations to more intelligently link the package to Jira tickets and the corresponding Bitbucket code and then push back to Jira the deployments in a more Jira friendly manner e.g. potentially creating/updating a Jira release for the deployment.

   5 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Integrations and connections (Jira, source control, DX etc.)  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

4. Difference Viewer custom object name: include suffix __c, __x, __mdt, __e, etc

   When you look in the Difference Viewer, it is not clear at all by inspection which line of Metadata Type "Custom Object" is a standard object, custom object, platform event, custom metadata type, historcial trending object, etc.

   For example, Custom object Foo__c displays simply in the Name column as Foo. This is a loss of information in the difference viewer, especially if one has similarly-named custom object metadata types such as:

   Fooc
   Foose
   FooConfig__mdt

   these display as
   Foo
   Foos
   FooConfig

   The full Sobject Name gives the user hints as to perhaps other related components that need to be deployed (perhaps inadvertently omitted by the comparison filters) - such as layouts, permissions, custom metadata type values, etc.

   When you look in the Difference Viewer, it is not clear at all by inspection which line of Metadata Type "Custom Object" is a standard object, custom object, platform event, custom metadata type, historcial trending object, etc.

   For example, Custom object Foo__c displays simply in the Name column as Foo. This is a loss of information in the difference viewer, especially if one has similarly-named custom object metadata types such as:

   Fooc
   Foose
   FooConfig__mdt

   these display as
   Foo
   Foos
   FooConfig

   The full Sobject Name gives the user hints as to perhaps other related components that need to be… more

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   1 comment  ·  Comparisons and difference visualization  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

5. would be cool to be able to "ignore" certain differences

   would be cool to be able to "ignore" certain differences... e.g. encryption. So if encryption is enabled in a Production Org but not in a Sandbox (not sure if Encryption is possible for SBs), you have a difference for every custom field <encrypted>true/false</encrypted> which is really irritating.

   16 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   6 comments  ·  Comparisons and difference visualization  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

6. Enhance capabilities around 'co-administration'

   In our organization we have a couple different salesforce admins that are administrating the salesforce development pipeline in which several developers are making changes and deploying them via gearset. Right now it seems cumbersome/duplicative to do this particularly around the area of adding a sandbox org and then managing permissions of the developers to that sandbox. It would be nice if there was a way for one admin to connect the sandbox, grant the other admin "Owner-level" access to it, and for the two admins to have a shared view of the user access to that org, so I can see where my fellow admin has given access and to what users at what level, and vice versa. Right now we are each connecting the org independently as an owner, and we are each setting permissions duplicatively. This creates lots of potential quagmires, such as what happens if we each grant the same developer a different permission level to the same sandbox? What if one of us is on vacation and I need to elevate the developers permissions but the fellow on vacation granted their access originally and I cannot see what level was granted? Etc!

   In our organization we have a couple different salesforce admins that are administrating the salesforce development pipeline in which several developers are making changes and deploying them via gearset. Right now it seems cumbersome/duplicative to do this particularly around the area of adding a sandbox org and then managing permissions of the developers to that sandbox. It would be nice if there was a way for one admin to connect the sandbox, grant the other admin "Owner-level" access to it, and for the two admins to have a shared view of the user access to that org, so I can… more

   2 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  New feature  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

7. Implement public key authentication for source control

   Implement public key authentication for source control.

   Allow Gearset to generate a public/private key pair, and expose the public key for use in authentication to source control.

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   1 comment  ·  Integrations and connections (Jira, source control, DX etc.)  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

8. Create a Master-Switch Only deployment process

   Can you create a master-switch deployment option? It would be similar to how this operates: https://sfswitch.herokuapp.com/

   The issue is that this master switch does not always work with managed packages in production orgs.

   So a way to automate the turning off/on of Validation Rules, Process Builders, Flows, and Triggers.

   Use Case: We are building a new app and have significant data migration to do. It would help to have a master switch to turn off processes in PROD, deploy date, then, flip the master switch back to turning processes back on.

   2 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Deployment automation  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

9. Show the Created Date and Refresh Date on the Draft Deployments

   I understand the Draft Deployments are snapshots from when they were created or last refreshed. Is that right? Please show these fields on the Draft Deployments page.

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  New feature  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

10. Adjust dependancy on managed package versions for Apex[Class|Page]

    We've found when developing classes against managed packages the class ...meta.xml includes the package version numbers. Problem is these are fixed to the exact version installed (e.g. 9.4, 9.3 etc. example below)

    But then if the managed package is upgraded Salesforce, in its infinite wisdom, doesn't update these so when you come to deploy next time you have to go and manually update all the version numbers - or if you have a different version in another sandbox (to test the newer one) same thing.

    Seems like something a cool deployment tool could handle and offer to fix up on deployment.

    <ApexClass xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
    <apiVersion>41.0</apiVersion>
    <packageVersions>
    <majorNumber>9</majorNumber>
    <minorNumber>4</minorNumber>
    <namespace>foo</namespace>
    </packageVersions>
    <status>Active</status>
    </ApexClass>

    We've found when developing classes against managed packages the class ...meta.xml includes the package version numbers. Problem is these are fixed to the exact version installed (e.g. 9.4, 9.3 etc. example below)

    But then if the managed package is upgraded Salesforce, in its infinite wisdom, doesn't update these so when you come to deploy next time you have to go and manually update all the version numbers - or if you have a different version in another sandbox (to test the newer one) same thing.

    Seems like something a cool deployment tool could handle and offer to fix up on… more

    3 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Problem analysis and deployment failures  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

11. I have so many connections and jobs, is it possible to have group them (in future release?)

    I have so many connections and jobs, is it possible to have group them (in future release?)

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  New feature  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

12. Trust Site

    Right now, Gearset is down and we cannot use it. It would be good to have a trust.gearset.com site that shows what is going on and what the team does to fix the issue...

    5 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Monitoring and reporting  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

13. When pushing Workflow rules and associated actions, gearset mistakenly says target objects do not exist

    When pushing work flow rules and associated actions, if you do a compare with only workflow, then gearset prompts an error indicating that the target objects do not exist in the destination and that the rules should be removed from the package for the deployment to be successful. In this case, it told me Account, Event and Opportunity do not exist in the target. Including other metadata from the referenced fields resolves the issue.

    4 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Bug  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

14. Add deployment support for Macros

    Macros deserve to be added to source control yet there is no way to do this with Gearset:

    1) Data feature (paid add-on) doesn't deploy to/from source
    2) PRO/Enterprise can't source/target deploy Macros because it is not available with the Metadata API.

    Since macros represent some debugged logic, managing in source control makes sense. Curiously, SFDC has chosen to make Documents available via Metadata API but not Macros

    4 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  New feature  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

15. Restrict source orgs

    For example, deployments to a production environment should only come from the master branch of our git repository

    4 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  New feature  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

16. Optimize comparison list view

    The comparison view contains a list view in a scrollable area with an line item for every metadata item in the comparison. Depending on the comparison, this list can be exorbitantly long (10k+ lines). Displaying this many elements on screen is extremely inefficient, and causes browsers to lock up when selecting the "check all" check box (because it results in thousands of incremental manipulations in the DOM). This issue also causes mobile browsers to crash when more than a thousand or so items show in the comparison results.

    There is a common pattern for handling long lists like this, in which a finite number of list items exist in the DOM. These list items are reused as a user scrolls through the list. Once a list item has scrolled far enough out of view, it is moved to the opposite side of the list, and its content dynamically updated to display the appropriate data for that index.

    The comparison view contains a list view in a scrollable area with an line item for every metadata item in the comparison. Depending on the comparison, this list can be exorbitantly long (10k+ lines). Displaying this many elements on screen is extremely inefficient, and causes browsers to lock up when selecting the "check all" check box (because it results in thousands of incremental manipulations in the DOM). This issue also causes mobile browsers to crash when more than a thousand or so items show in the comparison results.

    There is a common pattern for handling long lists like this, in… more

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Bug  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

17. Allows admins to limit the available branches of a repository

    When connecting a source code control system, quite often an integration user account is used that may also be used for other parts of the enterprise. Please allow admins to restrict the available repositories and branches so that users can only run comparisons for the branches they should actually have access to.

    5 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Team and account management  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

18. Test run details: show failed tests tab first

    When user clicks on test run details, Gearset defaults to the successes tab. But no one clicks on test Run details to see successes; they want to see failures. Default tab should be failures, especially if non-zero

    Saves user a click and supports DWIM - "do what I mean" when clicking Test Run Details

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  New feature  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

19. Add an auto-save feature while building deployment packages

    As Gearset is run through a web browser, if the browser happens to freeze while a package is being built, you don't have the opportunity to save it as a Draft Deployment. An auto-save feature would allow someone to pick up where they left off, or when the last auto-save was done, without having to start from scratch.

    49 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  Deployment automation  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

20. Improve PermissionSet comparisons by providing an option to ignore fieldPermissions when their editable/readable are set to false

    Current Metadata Behavior:
    When a new object is added, objectPermissions are only added to a PermissionSet only if one of allowCreate, allowDelete, allowEdit, modifyAllRecords, viewAllRecords are set to true
    When a new field is added, the new fieldPermission is added to all PermissionSets by default (with editable and readable set to false).
    
    NB. PermissionSets are additive in behavior and can only open up access not revoke. Values of false have no meaning and are only noise.

    Current Gearset Comparison Behavior:
    Comparing PermissionSets show these new fieldPermssions as New Items even when default values for editable, readable are set to false. There is no way to filter these out for comparison and need to be reviewed manually.

    Desired Gearset Comparison Behavior:
    Ability to filter out fieldPermissions when editable, readable are set to false, resulting in more accurate PermissionSets comparisons.

    Effect:
    New fieldPermissions are being added to all PermissionSets are causing excess noise/comparison time. If reviewing a PermissionSet fieldPermission change consumes anywhere from 1-2 minutes, a 10 project team consisting of 5 developers per team with an average of 5 PermissionSets per team results in each team spending 25-50 minutes daily reviewing non-relevant changes (5 developers each reviewing changes applied to their team's 5 PermissionSets). 10 teams results in nearly 250-500 minutes (4-9 hrs) daily consumed in this exercise.

    This is what we are experiencing.

    Current Metadata Behavior:
    When a new object is added, objectPermissions are only added to a PermissionSet only if one of allowCreate, allowDelete, allowEdit, modifyAllRecords, viewAllRecords are set to true
    When a new field is added, the new fieldPermission is added to all PermissionSets by default (with editable and readable set to false).
    
    NB. PermissionSets are additive in behavior and can only open up access not revoke. Values of false have no meaning and are only noise.

    Current Gearset Comparison Behavior:
    Comparing PermissionSets show these new fieldPermssions as New Items even when default values for editable, readable are set to false.… more

    8 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Comparisons and difference visualization  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close