Bug 149471 - [WorkbenchParts] IWorkbench#saveAllEditors(..) does not tell which editors could not be saved
Summary: [WorkbenchParts] IWorkbench#saveAllEditors(..) does not tell which editors co...
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Platform UI Triaged CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 147900
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2006-07-03 11:15 EDT by Markus Keller CLA
Modified: 2019-09-06 16:15 EDT (History)
1 user (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 Markus Keller CLA 2006-07-03 11:15:51 EDT 
I20060628-1135

IWorkbench#saveAllEditors(..) does not tell which editors could not be saved. We would should have a "save all" method that reports back which editors could not be saved. Currently, clients of saveAllEditors(..) only get a boolean (failed/ok), but they cannot tell the user which editors could not be saved.

This is e.g. a problem in the scenario from bug 147900, where a completely unrelated editor stopped the user from applying a refactoring.
Comment 1 Boris Bokowski CLA 2007-06-22 09:39:00 EDT 
Does IWorkbench.saveAll(...) help? It's @since 3.3.
Comment 2 Markus Keller CLA 2007-06-22 13:08:57 EDT 
IWorkbench.saveAll(...) would not help, but looking at bug 147900 again, I now think that bug is invalid, so I won't need this at all. The remaining open questions can be solved in bug 149469.
Comment 3 Boris Bokowski CLA 2007-06-22 13:50:32 EDT 
(In reply to comment #2)
> IWorkbench.saveAll(...) would not help

Why not?  I thought you guys now implement ISaveablesSource, so there should be a way to trigger a save of just those editors that are related...?
Comment 4 Eclipse Webmaster CLA 2019-09-06 16:15:06 EDT 
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.