Bug 282187 - [formatter] Exclude particular lines from auto-format
Summary: [formatter] Exclude particular lines from auto-format
Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 27079
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.5   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 major with 1 vote (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.6 M6   Edit
Assignee: Frederic Fusier CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-07-01 13:18 EDT by bug r. naut CLA
Modified: 2010-03-09 06:12 EST (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 bug r. naut CLA 2009-07-01 13:18:07 EDT 
often semantic structure is best mirrored in code structure, which doesn't necessarily fit the code conventions though. hence a feature that allows us to exclude particular lines from auto-formatting, to mark them as "don't format" basically, would be great and promote readability immensely in certain cases.
Comment 1 Amenel Voglozin CLA 2010-01-12 10:43:37 EST 
Yes, this is a major functionality for me, especially in enumerations. Although the semantic structure argument is totally valid, I am more interested in simple readability of Java files.

Sample code:

public enum MsgId {
	//
	// keys for messages in the messages.properties file
	MSG_ASSOC_MANDATORY         ("association.is.mandatory"),
	MSG_DEFAULT_ERROR_MSG       ("default.error.msg"),
	MSG_FIELD_MANDATORY         ("field.is.mandatory"),
	MSG_FILE_FIELD_MANDATORY    ("file.field.label.mandatory"),
	MSG_FILL_MANDATORY_FIELDS   ("fill.mandatory.fields"),
	MSG_INTEGRITY_VIOLATION     ("integrity.violation"),
...
}

To this date, any formatting of  this class will make the enum look garbage.
A tag, directive, keyword, annotation, etc. anything that would prevent formatting of a portion of code would be fine for me.
Comment 2 Frederic Fusier CLA 2010-02-17 04:18:34 EST 
Duplicate of bug 27079.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 27079 ***
Comment 3 Ayushman Jain CLA 2010-03-09 06:08:40 EST 
Verified for 3.6M6 using build I20100305-1011.
Comment 4 Jay Arthanareeswaran CLA 2010-03-09 06:12:50 EST 
Verified.