Bug 307523 - Differences between patch of bug 210422 and sources
Summary: Differences between patch of bug 210422 and sources
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.6   Edit
Hardware: Other All
: P3 minor (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.7 M1   Edit
Assignee: Olivier Thomann CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-03-30 09:36 EDT by Stephan Herrmann CLA
Modified: 2010-08-03 06:23 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Proposed fix (4.42 KB, patch)
2010-07-15 15:46 EDT, Olivier Thomann CLA 		no flags Details | Diff
View All 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 Stephan Herrmann CLA 2010-03-30 09:36:32 EDT 
The patch from bug 210422 was not applied to LocalTypeBinding.java 
as posted (see rev. 1.45).

Notably, all mentions of anonymousOriginalSuperType have either been
deleted or commented out - compared to the posted patch. Instead a new
method of same name was introduced which is not contained in the patch.

I'm currently wondering if this was intended or by accident?
If the field anonymousOriginalSuperType is not needed it should probably 
be deleted completely; also the ctor arg.
Comment 1 Olivier Thomann CLA 2010-03-31 10:17:01 EDT 
Philippe, could you please comment since you released the bug 210422?
Thanks.
Comment 2 Olivier Thomann CLA 2010-06-10 12:50:25 EDT 
(In reply to comment #0)
> I'm currently wondering if this was intended or by accident?
> If the field anonymousOriginalSuperType is not needed it should probably 
> be deleted completely; also the ctor arg.
I think we should clean up that code. Unfortunately I don't actually plan to clean up the patch for bug 210422.
Comment 3 Stephan Herrmann CLA 2010-06-10 12:57:01 EDT 
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think we should clean up that code. Unfortunately I don't actually plan to
> clean up the patch for bug 210422.

Is that you're asking for help or are you just stating that the cleanup
will not be reflected back as a patch attached to bug 210422?
Comment 4 Olivier Thomann CLA 2010-06-10 13:02:30 EDT 
(In reply to comment #3)
> Is that you're asking for help or are you just stating that the cleanup
> will not be reflected back as a patch attached to bug 210422?
If you want to provide a patch attached to bug 210422, feel free to do so. It is unfortunate that the patch attached to this bug report is not what was released for this issue.
But you are right that we should completely clean up the code for clarity.
Comment 5 Olivier Thomann CLA 2010-07-15 15:46:21 EDT 
Created attachment 174440 [details]
Proposed fix

Stephan, please review.
Comment 6 Olivier Thomann CLA 2010-07-15 15:46:39 EDT 
This bug should be fixed once the cleanup is done.
Comment 7 Stephan Herrmann CLA 2010-07-16 14:08:30 EDT 
Hi Olivier,

without fully understanding how the current situation relates to bug 210422,
yes, your patch looks safe. And the original reason why I was puzzled is 
resolved. So, thanks, feel free to close this bug.
Comment 8 Olivier Thomann CLA 2010-07-19 12:42:28 EDT 
Released for 3.7M1.
Verification must be done by looking at the source code.
Comment 9 Jay Arthanareeswaran CLA 2010-08-03 06:23:00 EDT 
Verified for 3.7M1 by code inspection.