Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build ID: I20070625-1500 Steps To Reproduce: 1. create a new Java class: public class A { public static int RET = 1; /** * @return {@link #RET} */ public int a() { return RET; } } 2. click on a() and hit F2 EXPECTED BEHAVIOUR: The hint is: --- int A.a() Returns: RET --- OBSERVED BEHAVIOUR: The hint is: --- int A.a() Returns: {@link #RET} --- More information: If you change A into: public class A { public static int RET = 1; /** * @return value {@link #RET} */ public int a() { return RET; } } and then you hit F2 on a() you correctly see the hint as: --- int A.a() Returns: value RET --- It seems that the problem in rendering the @link only occurs when you start the @return content with a @link tag.
Reviewing bug: using build I20080528-2000, I did not manage to reproduce this issue (see to be attached screen shot): the display is now correct (no {@link anymore). Also found that this was fixed between 3.4M4 and 3.4M5, though I was not able to identify the bug that fixed this issue. May you please verify that this problem does not occur anymore using a recent build? Thanks.
Created attachment 102629 [details] [screen shot] hover over a()
Hi Eric, I just tried with Eclipse 3.4RC2 and this problem actually seems to be fixed (I compared the behaviour with that of 3.3.2). Can I mark this bug as resolved/fixed or should you do it? Mauro.
(Mauro: closing this one with proper target / resolution as per jdt.core process) Resolution will be WORKSFORME as I was unable to find which bug integrated into 3.4M5 fixed this one.
I verified it's fixed, thank you. Mauro.
sorry, reopening as the verification will be performed during RC3 bug verification (internal process).
Change resolution to WORKSFORME
(In reply to comment #6) > sorry, reopening as the verification will be performed during RC3 bug > verification (internal process). Sorry Eric, I thought I could be of help for you by marking this bug as verified. Mauro.
(In reply to comment #8) my fault: you marking this bug as VERIFIED was OK.
(In reply to comment #9) > my fault: you marking this bug as VERIFIED was OK. So, may I do it again? :-) Mauro.
(In reply to comment #10) yes please - thanks