Community
Participate
Working Groups
Reproduce: 1. Register IContentAssistProcessor which uses JFace ContentProposal class. Make sure that it provides additionalProposalInfo in html form. 2. On content assist the additonal proposal info is not rendered as html but the tags are visible. This probably happens because JFace ContentProposal class doesn't override getInformationControlCreator but generic editor ends up not defaulting to DefaultInformationControl in this case.
IIRC, the DefaultInformationControl enables HTML rendering depending on the constructor being used. Here is a piece of code (from LSP4E) that should manage to render HTML in popup. return new AbstractReusableInformationControlCreator() { @Override public IInformationControl doCreateInformationControl(Shell shell) { return new DefaultInformationControl(shell, true); } }; The editor should try the same thing.
By the way, if you editor uses HTML rendering, it's better to let the completion proposal use a BrowserInformationControl, which fully delegates HTML rendering to a browser whereas DefaultInformationControl has quite limited HTML rendering support.
Mickael, what should we do with this one? Still up for M7 or move it out of Oxygen?
As the DefaultInformationContentCreator is kind of deprecated (at least known as being too weak) in favor of the BrowserInformationControl; I don't think we should put too much effort on this one for M7. I'm even tempted to close it as WONTFIX. What do you think?
(In reply to Mickael Istria from comment #4) > As the DefaultInformationContentCreator is kind of deprecated (at least > known as being too weak) in favor of the BrowserInformationControl; I don't > think we should put too much effort on this one for M7. > I'm even tempted to close it as WONTFIX. What do you think? +1 for kicking out of M7
(In reply to Sopot Cela from comment #5) > (In reply to Mickael Istria from comment #4) > > As the DefaultInformationContentCreator is kind of deprecated (at least > > known as being too weak) in favor of the BrowserInformationControl; I don't > > think we should put too much effort on this one for M7. > > I'm even tempted to close it as WONTFIX. What do you think? > > +1 for kicking out of M7 So can we say this one depends on Bug 218482 ?
> So can we say this one depends on Bug 218482 ? Yes, let's say that.
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. -- The automated Eclipse Genie.
