Community
Participate
Working Groups
I've opened this bug based on the work done in bug #120238. There is now a graphic design and support for showing required field emphasis in dialogs. I think search dialogs would benefit from this because the different search pages are a bit inconsistent in what is required. The file pattern field is required in file search, but the search expression is not required. In Java search, the search expression is required. In plug-in search, nothing is required. I realize this crosses platform and JDT boundaries, but figured I'd open the bug here. If you are interested in this idea, I could provide patches for the search pages involved.
Susan, can you point me to the example code?
The example is in org.eclipse.ui.examples.fieldassist. To run the example, choose FieldAssist>Open Example Dialog. There is a preference page that lets you control what kinds of emphasis is shown, but by default it uses the color and decoration specified by Kim in bug #120238. The code is in the class ExampleDialog. For required field emphasis, the methods of importance are handleFocusLost(SmartField) and handleModify(SmartField.) The intention is to some day have code in JFace that would allow you to specify a field is required and everything would happen for you. But for now, it's up to the individual dialog and you can factor the code however you wish.
Martin, per bug #120238, I'm going to add required field emphasis to the switch workspace dialog and elsewhere. I will ping here when there is something more specific for you to look at.
See the patch in bug #132833 which adds required field emphasis to the text search page as well as the regex content assist cue. These fixes are included together as both involve adding decorated fields and with only one fix, code to fix the alignment has to be added. If you prefer to only consider required field emphasis and not the content assist cue support, then I can provide a different patch here. Let me know.
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.
