Summary: | Open Type is case-sensitive | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Dani Megert <daniel_megert> | ||||
Component: | Core | Assignee: | Frederic Fusier <frederic_fusier> | ||||
Status: | VERIFIED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||
Severity: | major | ||||||
Priority: | P3 | CC: | dirk_baeumer, janek.lb, loskutov, markus.kell.r, Tod_Creasey | ||||
Version: | 3.2 | ||||||
Target Milestone: | 3.2 RC1 | ||||||
Hardware: | PC | ||||||
OS: | Windows XP | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Dani Megert
2006-04-12 08:26:32 EDT
The problem is that SearchPattern.validateMatchRule( pattern, SearchPattern.R_CAMELCASE_MATCH) == SearchPattern.R_CAMELCASE_MATCH now evaluates to true for a pattern like "foobar" which is clearly not a camel case pattern. I think that this got introduce by the new camel case code released yesterday. Moving to JDT/Core for further investigation. Should fix for RC1 Right,as pattern may have lowercase characters, I removed previous verification (only uppercase chars except for first and trailing ones) and only verify that all characters are java identifier ones. But, of course, this verification is too weak now and we need to verify that there's a least one uppercase character... Created attachment 38409 [details]
Patch to fix this issue
*** Bug 136326 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Patch released in HEAD. *** Bug 136374 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Verified for 3.2 RC1 using build I20060413-0010 Please consider to reopen/revisit this bug. In RC1, Build id: I20060413-1718 I have no matches for "hashM" or "Hashm" (in 3.1 I've got in both cases at least HashMap), but I've got match for "hashm". I think this is very confusing and "not compatible" with 3.1. (In reply to comment #9) > Please consider to reopen/revisit this bug. > In RC1, Build id: I20060413-1718 I have no matches for "hashM" or "Hashm" (in > 3.1 I've got in both cases at least HashMap), but I've got match for "hashm". I > think this is very confusing and "not compatible" with 3.1. > I agree there's still an issue here. Please reopen a new bug, it will be easier to follow-up work on this, thanks comment 10: bug 137087 opened. |