Bug 142001 - [batch][options] Typo in help message
Summary: [batch][options] Typo in help message
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.2 RC5   Edit
Assignee: Olivier Thomann CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-05-16 10:26 EDT by Maxime Daniel CLA
Modified: 2006-05-19 11:23 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
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 Maxime Daniel CLA 2006-05-16 10:26:24 EDT 
3.2 RC4
In org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch/messages.properties 1.537 (aka v_666) line 186, unQualifiedField should read unqualifiedField (lower case 'q').
Comment 1 Olivier Thomann CLA 2006-05-16 10:39:23 EDT 
This should be merged with changes for bug 141797.
Comment 2 Olivier Thomann CLA 2006-05-16 11:28:52 EDT 
I consider this as a doc change.
+1 for RC5?
Comment 3 Philipe Mulet CLA 2006-05-16 12:03:05 EDT 
The problem is that this change would invalidate translation work.
I would rather queue this for 3.3.
Comment 4 Philipe Mulet CLA 2006-05-16 12:06:25 EDT 
Oops, misread the issue.

Yes, the batch compiler help message should be fixed.
I assume "unqualifiedField" is the expected value on the command line anyway ?
Comment 5 Philipe Mulet CLA 2006-05-16 12:08:00 EDT 
+1 for 3.2RC5.

This is a typo in the batch compiler help message, where it incorrectly tells that a warning option name is "unQualifiedField" instead of "unqualifiedField", as supported by the implementation.

McQ - pls cast your vote.
Comment 6 Philipe Mulet CLA 2006-05-16 12:08:29 EDT 
Dani - pls vote
Comment 7 Philipe Mulet CLA 2006-05-16 12:09:13 EDT 
Darin - pls vote
Comment 8 Dani Megert CLA 2006-05-16 12:13:45 EDT 
+1 for 3.2 RC5.
Comment 9 Darin Wright CLA 2006-05-16 12:15:36 EDT 
+1
Comment 10 Olivier Thomann CLA 2006-05-16 12:32:11 EDT 
yes, this is right. unqualifiedField is the expected option.
Comment 11 Philipe Mulet CLA 2006-05-17 04:48:35 EDT 
Forgot to CC Mike.

Mike - can you pls vote ?
Comment 12 Mike Wilson CLA 2006-05-17 07:38:34 EDT 
+1
Comment 13 Olivier Thomann CLA 2006-05-17 09:20:55 EDT 
Fixed and released in HEAD.
To verify, print the help of the batch compiler.
Comment 14 Olivier Thomann CLA 2006-05-19 11:23:04 EDT 
Verified with I20060519-0010 for 3.2RC5