Codebeamer

I am using Codebeamer Release 2.2.1.3 . On Tracker, there is an issue: test cases are auto-traced to system requirements, but we don’t want automatic tracing when the verification method is design review.Automatic tracing of test cases to system requirements shall be omitted, provided that the verification method is specified on the system requirement and the method is design review. The compute code is as below:

Hello there, We’re wondering is there any feature/workaroud to mass delete comments in items?Here’s the case: our user copied aprox. 600 items from one place to another. Everything was copied including comments, which are not applicable in the new place, so now they’re deleting comments one by one. Is there any workaround for this?

Hello,Issue summary: Long running export jobs not able to kill from UI as a System administratorIssue Details:Do export TCs with steps from project level without any filter Depends on CB memory performance, export job will be running for more than 24hrs which is not normal and this affect other user export activity as well. Next users need to wait for the export file to get downloaded as previous job is not completed.Current Resolution: We need to run query to kill the job with help of IS/IT teamSuggestion: As a system administrator, if job running for long time need an easy option in UI itself to kill the job.And it would be better to give priority for the queued job

Hello, Issue summary: In current CB v2.2.x, CB exporting the content as it is in Markup type. But in UI is clean to see the content without any markup contents Issue Details:Create or Import an item with description as Wiki with some links or bold or italic or strikethough etc, and save it Now in UI as a user, we can see the content clearly without any markup languages. But when we export the same item in default template, i could see description exported in markup language. Current Resolution: Using groovy, we can export the description content but it is 2nd way. Suggestion: If Codebeamer exports same as viewable in UI, it will be very useful

When copying requirements in Codebeamer (for example via Copy To or Smart Copy), all comments are automatically copied to the new requirement.The improvement is like can we have any option to exclude comments while copying requirements.

When changing the item type from Informational to Requirement, the Status field remains unset. Status is not required in an informational type but is required for a requirement type.  It would be better if the item entered into the workflow at the initial state.  Is there a work around to force the item into the initial state, we couldn’t find a way.

Issue DetailsCreate or import an item with the description field set as Wiki format, including elements like: Links Bold / Italic text Strikethrough formatting After saving, the content is displayed correctly in the UI in a readable, formatted way without exposing markup syntax. However, when exporting the same item using the default export template: The description is exported in raw markup language instead of the formatted view. This creates difficulty for users who expect exported content to match what they see in the UI.Current ResolutionA workaround exists using Groovy scripting to export the formatted description content. However, this is not a standard or user-friendly solution and requires additional effort and customization.ProposalEnhance the export functionality to output content as rendered in the UI (formatted view) instead of raw markup. Provide an option in export settings to choose between: Raw markup format Rendered (UI-equivalent) format BenefitsImproved usabilit

Currently in Codebeamer, exporting data requires predefined templates with fixed field selections. Each export template is static and does not allow users to dynamically select or deselect fields at the time of export.This creates a limitation where users must create and maintain multiple templates based on varying reporting needs. For example:In some cases, users need Domain + other fields In other cases, only specific selected fields are required Different stakeholders request different combinations of fieldsAs a result, for each variation, a separate export template must be created and maintained, leading to duplication, increased maintenance effort, and reduced usability. Current Workaround / ResolutionMultiple export templates are created for different use cases Users select the closest matching template for their need Additional manual effort is required to manage and update these templates when field requirements changeChallenges with current approach:Template proliferation (too

Issue DescriptionCurrently, during Excel import in Codebeamer, users have limited flexibility in defining the format/type for custom text fields. Only certain fields (such as Description) provide mapping options where users can control how the content is interpreted (e.g., plain text, HTML, wiki format, etc.).However, for other custom text fields, this capability is not available. The system applies a default format without giving users the option to explicitly select or adjust it during import.This creates inconsistencies, especially when:Importing rich text content into custom fields Handling formatted text (HTML/wiki) across different fields Aligning imported content with field expectations Current Limitation / BehaviorFormat selection during import is only available for certain fields (e.g., Description) Custom text fields do not provide format mapping options Users have no control over how content is interpreted in those fields Leads to formatting issues or loss of structure after

Issue DetailsWhen exporting Test Cases (TCs) with steps at the project level without any filters, the export job can run for an excessively long duration (sometimes over 24 hours), depending on CodeBeamer (CB) memory performance. These long-running jobs block the export queue, preventing other users from initiating or completing their export requests. Subsequent users are forced to wait until the previous export job completes, which impacts overall system efficiency and user experience. Currently, even a System Administrator cannot terminate these jobs directly from the UI (Quartz Triggers page).Current ResolutionTo stop such long-running export jobs, a database query must be executed. This requires involvement from the IS/IT team, causing delays and dependency on additional support teams.ProposalIntroduce an option in the Quartz Triggers UI for System Administrators to terminate or kill long-running export jobs directly. Provide a mechanism to monitor job duration and identify unusual

I am using CodebeamerX Release 4.3 and Datecode4.3 Low physical memory is available 0% - 64.2MB is available out of 7.6GB Hello, Please address the items in this list: 1. How much memory do we have? 2. How much memory are we using? 3. Please, may we have a list of our projects and the memory used for each project? We would like to know what projects we may delete. 4. If we desire more memory, how do we obtain more memory? Here are the errors that I faced Low physical memory is available 0% - 64.2MB is available out of 7.6GB Hello, Please address the items in this list: 1. How much memory do we have? 2. How much memory are we using? 3. Please, may we have a list of our projects and the memory used for each project? We would like to know what projects we may delete. 4. If we desire more memory, how do we obtain more memory? Thank you, Michael Shorkey Greeen Cubes Technology 812-341-0837

Hi,We had Codebeamer 2.1.0.0 installed in our virtual machine and now it has expired. We want to re-install it but as for 2.1.0.0 the support has been ended then we want to upgrade it. Which license we need to seek first. And how can we request for bulk license on an organization level? Thanks.

Issue SummaryAbility to select field format for custom text fields during Excel import Issue DescriptionCurrently, during Excel import in Codebeamer, users have limited flexibility in defining the format/type for custom text fields. Only certain fields (such as Description) provide mapping options where users can control how the content is interpreted (e.g., plain text, HTML, wiki format, etc.).However, for other custom text fields, this capability is not available. The system applies a default format without giving users the option to explicitly select or adjust it during import.This creates inconsistencies, especially when:Importing rich text content into custom fields Handling formatted text (HTML/wiki) across different fields Aligning imported content with field expectations Current Limitation / BehaviorFormat selection during import is only available for certain fields (e.g., Description) Custom text fields do not provide format mapping options Users have no control over how conte

Issue summary: Limited flexibility in Codebeamer export templates requiring multiple templates for different field combinations Currently in Codebeamer, exporting data requires predefined templates with fixed field selections. Each export template is static and does not allow users to dynamically select or deselect fields at the time of export.This creates a limitation where users must create and maintain multiple templates based on varying reporting needs. For example:In some cases, users need Domain + other fields In other cases, only specific selected fields are required Different stakeholders request different combinations of fieldsAs a result, for each variation, a separate export template must be created and maintained, leading to duplication, increased maintenance effort, and reduced usability. Current Workaround / ResolutionMultiple export templates are created for different use cases Users select the closest matching template for their need Additional manual effort is required

In the Traceability report, after applying filters, more than 95,000 items are available. However, the system currently allows selecting a maximum of 500 items at a time.To select more than 500 items, we would need to navigate through each page and clicking “select all” individually. With over 190 pages, this approach isn’t feasible.According to the PTC team, 500 items are the maximum limit of items allowed to be selected in this table view.Please refer below Resolution article.Resolution Article-Is it possible to view more than 500 Work Items in the Reference Linking screen in Codebeamer<https://www.ptc.com/en/support/article/CS449187>From the user’s perspective, Filtering returns over 95,000 items, making it impractical to navigate more than 190 pages and select them individually. The user strongly requests the ability to select all filtered results at once and wishes to have this functionality. 

While adding any new item to an existing review .1. Not able to search item using item id , which is working in older version.

The "Show more" feature currently counts each item multiple times because each item has three HTML elements (icon, name, and suspected tag). It would be better to count each item as one, regardless of the number of elements it contains. 

Enable a selection menu during export so the correct .docx layout can be applied based on the tracker type.Justification: This is required to automate standardized document generation for different V-cycle phases and ensure compliance with various reporting formats.

I propose CodeBeamer to add a function to set the default stream.Every time I login in CodeBeamer, it stays in initial stream. And I have to switch to other stream every day. 

In the UI a tracker can be locked by a user for exclusive access, but this is not possible via REST API.Use case:The items of a tracker are modified outside the UI, e.g. to generate a item skeleton. This operation must be performed atomic, i.e. it must be prevented that someone else modifies any item of the tracker while the external modifications are done.

Hi I'm started with the Codebeamer Advanced Congiguration in the PTC Demo environment.I'm running into the issue that the parameters template document is not available in both "the Demo environment" as the "Codebeamer Advanced Configuration training material"Has anybody idea where i am able to find the  document?

I have the need to require 3 signatures in order to approve an item reviewed in Review Hub. Each project only one System Owner and only one Technical Owner but multiple Software Quality engineers. There are roles defined in the project for those 3 types of users. I can specify those roles as reviewers in the Review Hub process and require 3 signatures but I need to ensure that the System Owner and Technical Owner both sign in addition to 1 Software Quality engineer.  However, I can have 3 Software Quality engineers sign the review and it can then be approved. Is there a way to enforce that a representative of each role signs?