Bug 136313 - Open Type is case-sensitive
Summary: Open Type is case-sensitive
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 major (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.2 RC1   Edit
Assignee: Frederic Fusier CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 136326 136374 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-04-12 08:26 EDT by Dani Megert CLA
Modified: 2006-04-17 17:09 EDT (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Patch to fix this issue (7.19 KB, patch)
2006-04-12 10:49 EDT, Frederic Fusier CLA 		no flags Details | Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Dani Megert CLA 2006-04-12 08:26:32 EDT 
N20060412-0010


Open Type became case-sensitive. This is very bad, since I'm now forced to type the exact name, e.g. Foor instead of foo to find FooBar.
Comment 1 Dirk Baeumer CLA 2006-04-12 09:00:02 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.
Comment 2 Philipe Mulet CLA 2006-04-12 09:46:34 EDT 
Should fix for RC1
Comment 3 Frederic Fusier CLA 2006-04-12 10:49:12 EDT 
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...
Comment 4 Frederic Fusier CLA 2006-04-12 10:49:49 EDT 
Created attachment 38409 [details]
Patch to fix this issue
Comment 5 Dani Megert CLA 2006-04-12 12:14:45 EDT 
*** Bug 136326 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Frederic Fusier CLA 2006-04-12 12:26:41 EDT 
Patch released in HEAD.
Comment 7 Markus Keller CLA 2006-04-12 12:48:59 EDT 
*** Bug 136374 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Jerome Lanneluc CLA 2006-04-13 11:42:15 EDT 
Verified for 3.2 RC1 using build I20060413-0010
Comment 9 Andrey Loskutov CLA 2006-04-17 11:51:20 EDT 
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.
Comment 10 Frederic Fusier CLA 2006-04-17 16:29:20 EDT 
(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 11 Andrey Loskutov CLA 2006-04-17 17:09:32 EDT 
comment 10: bug 137087 opened.