Community
Participate
Working Groups
Taking out Bug 546146. The rewrite formatting does not take care of the project formatter setting for space before '->' in case and default.
ASTRewrite does not provide the formatting for space before ":" in case and default, so this needs an investigation.
Mateusz, can you please check?
I'm not sure, is this bug about something inside the formatter? I'm not familiar with the ASTRewrite.
I don't see anything done in UI to handle this. A call to ASTRewrite.rewriteAST() gives back the correct result for ':' case. (In reply to Mateusz Matela from comment #3) > I'm not sure, is this bug about something inside the formatter? > I'm not familiar with the ASTRewrite. Sarika, please clarify.
(In reply to Mateusz Matela from comment #3) > I'm not sure, is this bug about something inside the formatter? I'm not > familiar with the ASTRewrite. Yes, it looks like formatter. we need to find where formatter takes care of space before ":" in default and case, similarly it needs to be done for "->".
New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/142018
(In reply to Eclipse Genie from comment #6) > New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/142018 This is a fix as described in bug 546146 comment 15. I don't know how to make a unit test for it, so you can prepare one or point me in the right direction.
@Manoj, Please confirm if this is fine.
(In reply to Sarika Sinha from comment #8) > @Manoj, > Please confirm if this is fine. Thanks for the fix, Mateusz. @Sarika: From the quick fix point of view, this solution looks ok. However, I am not too familiar with the TextEdit nuances, so I would suggest checking this with a more involved multi-text edit case. ie write a test case where default is added and then another edit of the rhs is done.for eg, add default->3, then change 3 to 4 and see whether this has any issue and similar ones with case. If these tests go through fine, +1 from my side.
Moving to 4.13 to add a test case and test.
Bulk move out of 4.13
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.