Bug 161318 - [History] Problems with the new file history API
Summary: [History] Problems with the new file history API
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: CVS (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows 2000
: P5 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: platform-cvs-inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: helpwanted
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-10-17 18:09 EDT by Harald Kaestel-Baumgartner CLA
Modified: 2019-09-06 16:18 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Harald Kaestel-Baumgartner CLA 2006-10-17 18:09:01 EDT
I've problems with the new file history API, added in eclipse 3.2. I'm using this in an history plug-in to avoid the use of internal CVS classes. In Detail:

1.) IFileHistoryProvider#getFileHistoryFor(IFileStore store, int flags, IProgressMonitor monitor) returns an empty array for the flag IFileHistoryProvider.SINGLE_LINE_OF_DESCENT. Is there in CVSFileHistoryProvider a statement like remoteFile.refresh(.) missing (Line 41 in Revision 1.11)? With the flag IFileHistoryProvider.NONE the method is working fine.

2.) IFileHistory#getContributors(IFileRevision revision) and IFileHistory#getTargets(IFileRevision revision) don't do what is discribbed in the API. getTargets returns all Revisions after the given revision. The API says: "Returns all of the direct descendents of the given in file revision.". getContributors returns the revision with the commit-date next to the given revision. This is not what is written in the API: "Returns the direct predecessors of the given revision.".

At the moment only IFileHistoryProvider#getFileHistoryFor(.) with the flag IFileHistoryProvider.NONE is usefull for my needs. I hope this is further supported in future releases of eclipse. A fix of the 2 bugs would be fine.
Comment 1 Bogdan Gheorghe CLA 2006-10-18 09:43:41 EDT
Yes, these are valid points. We'll try to address these sometime during the 3.3 cycle.
Comment 2 Michael Valenta CLA 2006-12-11 11:21:27 EST
We don't have the manpower to address this issue in 3.3 Patches will be accepted.
Comment 3 Eclipse Webmaster CLA 2019-09-06 16:18:29 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.