Bug 551313 - [Project Explorer] Filters and Customization dialog is missing some tab icons
Summary: [Project Explorer] Filters and Customization dialog is missing some tab icons
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 4.13   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 4.14 M1   Edit
Assignee: Andrey Loskutov CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: regression
Depends on:
Blocks: 548799
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2019-09-20 08:59 EDT by Paul Pazderski CLA
Modified: 2019-10-02 10:22 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Project explorer filter dialog with missing tab icons (29.71 KB, image/png)
2019-09-20 08:59 EDT, Paul Pazderski CLA 		no flags Details
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 Paul Pazderski CLA 2019-09-20 08:59:57 EDT 
Created attachment 279954 [details]
Project explorer filter dialog with missing tab icons

See attached screenshot. With plain SDK and fresh workspace the Filters and Customization dialog from project explorer has three tabs with three icons in 4.12 SDK but only the center tab has an icon in 4.13 SDK.

I don't see this problem in my regular 4.14 working SDK but probably because the workspace is the same since at least 4.12.
Comment 1 Andrey Loskutov CLA 2019-09-30 09:15:27 EDT 
Can it be it is caused by icons changed from gif to png?
Comment 2 Andrey Loskutov CLA 2019-10-01 05:20:46 EDT 
I see it on RHEL 7.4 too, so this is not SWT, it is bug 548799.

The logic in org.eclipse.ui.internal.navigator.NavigatorPlugin.getImage(String) doesn't work for the first lookup of the value.
Same issue in org.eclipse.ui.internal.navigator.extensions.NavigatorContentDescriptorManager.retrieveAndStoreImage(String).

I will push a patch in a moment.
Comment 3 Eclipse Genie CLA 2019-10-01 05:22:57 EDT 
New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/150416
Comment 5 Matthias Becker CLA 2019-10-02 02:40:43 EDT 
As the cause for this is a regression from bug 548799.

Does that mean that the new API behaves differently as the old one?
Comment 6 Paul Pazderski CLA 2019-10-02 02:46:08 EDT 
(In reply to Matthias Becker from comment #5)
> As the cause for this is a regression from bug 548799.
> 
> Does that mean that the new API behaves differently as the old one?

No, there is no reason to assume that. It is a good example why assignments in conditions or method calls are bad. The old code did an assignment in a method call and while changing the code to use the new API this assignment was overlooked.
Comment 7 Matthias Becker CLA 2019-10-02 02:50:40 EDT 
(In reply to Paul Pazderski from comment #6)
> (In reply to Matthias Becker from comment #5)
> > As the cause for this is a regression from bug 548799.
> > 
> > Does that mean that the new API behaves differently as the old one?
> 
> No, there is no reason to assume that. It is a good example why assignments
> in conditions or method calls are bad. The old code did an assignment in a
> method call and while changing the code to use the new API this assignment
> was overlooked.

Okay.
Comment 8 Andrey Loskutov CLA 2019-10-02 10:22:42 EDT 
Verified with I20191002-0100