Bug 288698

Summary:

Cannot create type hierarchy for abstract types when they have inline descendants and *.class* in project name

Product:

[Eclipse Project] JDT

Reporter:

Ivan <divacnd>

Component:

Core

Assignee:

Olivier Thomann <Olivier_Thomann>

Status:

VERIFIED FIXED

QA Contact:

Severity:

normal

Priority:

CC:

markus.kell.r, Olivier_Thomann, stephan.herrmann, vijay.rajonline

Version:

3.6

Target Milestone:

3.6 M2

Hardware:

OS:

Windows XP

Whiteboard:

Attachments:

Description	Flags
example project	none
error log	none
proposed patch with test	john.arthorne: iplog+
example project with a simple speed test	none

Description Ivan

2009-09-05 13:04:29 EDT

User-Agent:       Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; ru) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.00
Build Identifier: M20090211-1700

Can’t create type hierarchy for abstract types when they have inline descendants and *.class* in project name.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Create project with name containing the following pattern *.class* (e.g.  bug.class_test)
2.Create simple abstract class;
3.Create class that extends abstract class
4.Try to see type  hierarchy for abstract class  -- everything should work fine
5.Create simple class with any method where you create an inline instance of abstract class;
6.Save it. Now you are not able to see hierarchy for abstract class. See error log




As we can't create type hierarchy, java code analysis functionality may not work correctly

found in 3.4.2 but exists in 3.5 too

Comment 1 Ivan

2009-09-05 13:09:41 EDT

Created attachment 146555 [details]
example project

example plugin with buggy classes

Comment 2 Ivan

2009-09-05 13:12:34 EDT

Created attachment 146556 [details]
error log

Comment 3 Stephan Herrmann

2009-09-05 17:56:04 EDT

Oops (looking at IndexBasedHierarchyBuilder.searchAllPossibleSubTypes()):

int suffix = documentPath.toLowerCase().lastIndexOf(SUFFIX_STRING_class);

if this matches in the middle of a string, I wouldn't call it a suffix ;-)
further down substring(lastSlash+1, suffix) tries to create a substring
with negative length since suffix is smaller than lastSlash.

how about:

if (documentPath.toLowerCase().endsWith(SUFFIX_STRING_class)) {
    int suffix = documentPath.length()-SUFFIX_STRING_class.lenght();

?

Comment 4 Ivan

2009-09-06 04:10:44 EDT

looks good :) . Should work :)

Comment 5 Stephan Herrmann

2009-09-06 11:31:56 EDT

Created attachment 146576 [details]
proposed patch with test

Here you go!
Now we only need a committer to accept the patch.

2 notes:
 - I changed the example to use a source folder with ".class" in its name, 
   rather than a project. Fits easier into existing test infrastructure.
 - I made a search for other occurrences of String.lastIndexOf(String),
   but none looked suspecious to me. However, many places use this
   method with a one char String. Would it matter for performance to
   change it to using lastIndexOf(char)??

Comment 6 Ivan

2009-09-06 13:02:32 EDT

about perfomance: an idea came to me

  int suffix = documentPath.length() - SUFFIX_STRING_class.length();
  if (documentPath.substring(suffix).toLowerCase().equals(SUFFIX_STRING_class)) {
 will work more quickly, especially with long pathes

Comment 7 Stephan Herrmann

2009-09-06 14:14:08 EDT

(In reply to comment #6)
> about perfomance: an idea came to me
> 
>   int suffix = documentPath.length() - SUFFIX_STRING_class.length();
>   if (documentPath.substring(suffix).toLowerCase().equals(SUFFIX_STRING_class))
> {
>  will work more quickly, especially with long pathes

Why do you think so?
endsWith looks pretty efficient, plus it avoids to create another
string as substring does.

Comment 8 Ivan

2009-09-07 01:20:22 EDT

Created attachment 146585 [details]
example project with a simple speed test

a simple speed test look at SpeedTest.java

Comment 9 Olivier Thomann

2009-09-07 20:28:23 EDT

Let's review this.
Thanks Stephan!

Comment 10 Olivier Thomann

2009-09-09 12:04:21 EDT

Patch looks good.
Thanks for the patch.
Released for 3.6M2.
Regression test added in:
org.eclipse.jdt.core.tests.model.TypeHierarchyTests#testBug288698

Comment 11 Kent Johnson

2009-09-15 11:48:42 EDT

Verified for 3.6M2

Comment 12 Olivier Thomann

2009-11-16 09:51:02 EST

*** Bug 295206 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***