Bug 283287 - [organize imports] Could use favorites for static imports
Summary: [organize imports] Could use favorites for static imports
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 3.5   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 enhancement with 4 votes (vote)
Target Milestone: 4.17 M1   Edit
Assignee: Roland Grunberg CLA
QA Contact: Roland Grunberg CLA
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 487190 562641 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks: 563540
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2009-07-13 04:58 EDT by Ilja Preuss CLA
Modified: 2021-05-18 09:37 EDT (History)
6 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 Ilja Preuss CLA 2009-07-13 04:58:58 EDT 
Build ID: 20090621-0832

Steps To Reproduce:
1. Write source code that uses static imports
2. mix up the classpath so that the statically import class isn't reachable any more
3. organize imports (the static import gets removed)
4. fix the classpath (you still have compile time errors)
5. try to use quick fix or organize imports to fix the compile time problem

More information:
Yes, you can use content assist to fix the problem. It's much more inconvenient, though. Even though I should know it by now, it's always only my second guess on what to try.
Comment 1 Dani Megert CLA 2009-07-15 04:51:03 EDT 
>Yes, you can use content assist to fix the problem. 
Or quick fix.

If we decide to use the content assist preference then we have to move the 'Favorites' page out of Editor > Content Assist.
Comment 2 Markus Keller CLA 2009-08-26 13:28:35 EDT 
> Or quick fix.

Only for stuff from org.junit.Assert. Others should come with bug 181788.
Comment 3 Dani Megert CLA 2009-09-01 08:04:22 EDT 
Removed "see also" link as this should not be used for internal bug links.
Comment 4 Ilja Preuss CLA 2009-09-01 09:04:46 EDT 
(In reply to comment #3)
> Removed "see also" link as this should not be used for internal bug links.

So, what should be used instead? "Depends on" or "Blocks" doesn't really seem to apply, and having it only in the comment seems to be rather subtle...
Comment 5 Dani Megert CLA 2009-09-01 09:12:55 EDT 
Comment is good enough and if they depend somehow you can use depends/blocks as the help for the 'See also' field indicates.
Comment 6 Ilja Preuss CLA 2009-09-01 09:31:30 EDT 
(In reply to comment #5)
> Comment is good enough and if they depend somehow you can use depends/blocks as
> the help for the 'See also' field indicates.

Frankly, the logic of this escapes me (and I also read the help a bit differently), but it's not me who has to maintain the dependencies anyway, so what do I know ;)
Comment 7 Noopur Gupta CLA 2016-04-12 12:51:25 EDT 
*** Bug 487190 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Lars Vogel CLA 2020-06-10 06:15:58 EDT 
Roland, IIRC you are working in this area. Please have a look
Comment 9 Roland Grunberg CLA 2020-06-10 10:26:15 EDT 
Bug 562641 seems to be a duplicate of this. Should we just mark it as such and re-target the change up for review against this bug ?
Comment 10 Noopur Gupta CLA 2020-06-10 10:33:40 EDT 
(In reply to Roland Grunberg from comment #9)
> Bug 562641 seems to be a duplicate of this. Should we just mark it as such
> and re-target the change up for review against this bug ?
Yes.
Comment 11 Roland Grunberg CLA 2020-06-10 10:40:43 EDT 
*** Bug 562641 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13 Roland Grunberg CLA 2020-07-07 13:38:58 EDT 
Verified for 4.17 M1 using I20200707-0600 build