Bug 215190 - [formatter] Don't wrap between argument annotation and argument.
Summary: [formatter] Don't wrap between argument annotation and argument.
Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 122247
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.4 M5   Edit
Assignee: Eric Jodet CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-01-14 05:45 EST by Andreas Schildbach CLA
Modified: 2008-02-05 10:23 EST (History)
2 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 Andreas Schildbach CLA 2008-01-14 05:45:43 EST 
Build ID: I20071213-1700

Steps To Reproduce:
Even if you "Insert newline after annotations" in the "New Lines" tab of the Java source code formatter, the formatter should not insert a newline after an _argument level_ annotation, as this messes up with the method signature. Alternatively, at least a second option should be provided to control that behaviour.

The example source code on the right should be extended with an example for argument level annotations.


More information:
Comment 1 Andreas Schildbach CLA 2008-01-14 05:50:55 EST 
Here is an example of bad formatting:

public static void main(int p0, @Deprecated
int p1, @Deprecated
int p2, int p3, int p4, int p5, int p6, int p7, int p8) {
}

Should be formatted something like this:

public static void main(int p0, @Deprecated int p1, @Deprecated
    int p2, int p3, int p4, int p5, int p6, int p7, int p8) {
}
Comment 2 Eric Jodet CLA 2008-01-14 06:02:52 EST 
sounds like a dup of bug 207330

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 207330 ***
Comment 3 Eric Jodet CLA 2008-02-01 09:27:28 EST 
re-open to assign bug
Comment 4 Eric Jodet CLA 2008-02-04 10:58:18 EST 
bug 122247 fixed
Comment 5 Eric Jodet CLA 2008-02-04 12:55:27 EST 
re-open to flag as duplicate and not fixed
Comment 6 Eric Jodet CLA 2008-02-04 12:55:45 EST 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 122247 ***
Comment 7 Jerome Lanneluc CLA 2008-02-05 10:23:44 EST 
Verified for 3.4M5 using I20080205-0010