Community
Participate
Working Groups
For the File > New wizard, I think it would be useful to include category names in the filtered search, so that a category will be shown if it matches the filter, even if none of it's children do. For example, if I type "Example" in filter field, (in my build) nothing shows up, because there are no wizards with example in the label, but there is an entire category of example wizards, which would be useful to know. I think the preferred way of doing this would be to include the category and all it's children in the results. All wizards (and categories) that match will be shown in bold, the others would be listed in normal type. (This is similar to preferences filter, where items that don't match filter are shown, but not in bold). You could also just show the category in the results (no children), and you could get to the children by selecting the category, then clearing the filter (but this isn't as usable).
I can see how this would be useful in some cases. Note that the filtered tree was designed to show valid matching nodes that are valid selections - in the case of the preferences, every node is a a valid selection. This request is a feature enhancement and will likely require a re-design of the current implementation and very likely will require adding API.
*** Bug 139774 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I would like to +1 this - in real world use of our product, customers often type the product name in the filter. We have wizards like this: My Product\ Wizard 1 Wizard 2 Super Wizard Awesome Wizard filtering for "My Product" really should show all children of the category that was matched by the filter (it should show the category node so the user understands why the wizards are displayed).
Feel free to attach a patch... http://wiki.eclipse.org/Platform_UI/How_to_Contribute
Hitesh is now responsible for watching bugs in the [Viewers] component area.
Prakash is now responsible for watching bugs in the [Wizards] component area.
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.
