Community
Participate
Working Groups
I'm writing a piece of code with a non-existing (yet) method. The missing method is marked as error and a quick-fix is available. But I've got stuff to copy paste and prefer not using the automated createMethod quick-fix. So I get just after my current method and start typing the missing method signature, without much assistance. In this case, the CA processor could check that a method is missing in the class (using the marker for instance) and guide me in creating the method signature with similar capabilities as offered by the quick-fix.
(In reply to Mickael Istria from comment #0) > I'm writing a piece of code with a non-existing (yet) method. The missing > method is marked as error and a quick-fix is available. But I've got stuff > to copy paste and prefer not using the automated createMethod quick-fix. So > I get just after my current method and start typing the missing method > signature, without much assistance. Frankly, I don't see the advantage of using content assist over quick fix. How does your approach better support copy-paste than the existing quick fix? Not that I thinks such content assist would be wrong, just I personally believe we have other feature requests that would create more value than this one ...
(In reply to Stephan Herrmann from comment #1) > Frankly, I don't see the advantage of using content assist over quick fix. > How does your approach better support copy-paste than the existing quick fix? I'm not pretending it's better, it just happens to be what I want to use from time to time, and I'm always disappointed by the Content Assist not being smart for this case. > I personally > believe we have other feature requests that would create more value than > this one ... Sure, but this kind of low-hanging fruits comfort additions are also making a difference. Compare what people like in IJ vs Eclipse IDE, and they often mention the completion, it can take the form of such small cases which summed together make a big difference. The ROI of such small tasks on user satisfaction can actually be very good.
So, maybe what you're really asking for is that Quick Fixes/Assists are also shown when invoking content assist?
(In reply to Dani Megert from comment #3) > So, maybe what you're really asking for is that Quick Fixes/Assists are also > shown when invoking content assist? If we have in quick-fixes/assists a method to declare whether the upcoming change can be applied at a given caret location, why not; but I don't think there is. From the Class Body where I've moved my cursor, I wouldn't like to see all quick-fixes/assists for all markers in the class file, I'm only interested in those that have for effet to create a new field or method. The logic seems a bit complex to easily map the 2 concepts automatically, but we could image a genric and reusable content-assist processor that could wrap a quick-fix/assist and show it where it makes sense. Pragmatically, just having a dedicated "MissingFieldsOrMethodContentAssistProcessor" that is only returning results when in a class body according to the missing field/method report seems simpler.
