Summary: | "Missing code implementation in the compiler" initializting static generic type | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Ary Borenszweig <ary> | ||||
Component: | Core | Assignee: | JDT-Core-Inbox <jdt-core-inbox> | ||||
Status: | VERIFIED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |||||
Severity: | normal | ||||||
Priority: | P3 | CC: | Olivier_Thomann, stephan.herrmann | ||||
Version: | 3.4 | ||||||
Target Milestone: | 3.5 M1 | ||||||
Hardware: | PC | ||||||
OS: | Windows Vista | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Ary Borenszweig
2008-07-18 10:02:04 EDT
Created attachment 108276 [details]
proposed patch with simple test
A ParameterizedTypeBinding whose 'type' is missing is marked with
HasMissingType, yet it's problemId() was reported as NoError.
-> ProblemReporter.invalidType() was trying to report "NoError".
Since a ParameterizedTypeBinding cannot have a relevant
problemReason delegating to the type should be safe, right?
Are there more situations like this? ArrayBinding already implements
the same strategy. Others?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 239439 *** (In reply to comment #1) > Are there more situations like this? ArrayBinding already implements > the same strategy. Others? I ended up with a similar fix for bug 239439. I don't think we need to check for null as the inner type cannot be null by construction. Stephan, thanks for your time and the patch. (In reply to comment #3) > I ended up with a similar fix for bug 239439. ;-) > I don't think we need to check > for null as the inner type cannot be null by construction. I fully agree. Do your tests for bug 239439 also detect the bogus error message ("Missing code implementation")? Perhaps you can still use the test from my patch for that purpose, if you like. (In reply to comment #5) > Do your tests for bug 239439 also detect the bogus error message > ("Missing code implementation")? Perhaps you can still use the test > from my patch for that purpose, if you like. This is exactly what I did. See the released version of the GenericTests. Verified for 3.5M1 using I20080805-1307 |