Community
Participate
Working Groups
When I rename class Foo, I'd like to see an "check table", listing other classes that start with Foo (and/or maybe end with Foo). Checking any of these will apply the same rename for any checked classes. For example: Parser->FooParser, would also offer "ParserTest" and rename it to "FooParserTest" if checked. Table->Chart would also offer SparseTable and rename it to SparseChart. I would also like to set a Project specfic-pattern that says "default check" anything matching this pattern (.*Test, for example).
Good suggestion, but not for 3.0.
I tried implementing this behavior using a rename participant and mimic the way it's done in RenameSupport. However, I failed reusing the new JavaRenameRefactoring(new RenameTypeProcessor(relatedType)) because it does not know about the initial rename and thus, I end up with old and the new compilation units, i.e. the old ones are changed too but not removed. I assume this happens because the RenameTypeProcessor is not able to work in a "chained" mode where it gets a list of preceding renames to take into account when computing the changes for updating the references. Any chance to get support for this in 3.3? I don't mind if the API would be internal/provisional. Are there other ways I should explorer?
This might be impossble with the current participant story: - we assume that changes from participants do not interfere with the original changes. You can do some guessing using the IJavaElementMapper and accessing changed files, but you're walking on thin ice. - so I think this can currently only be added to the rename refactoring directly. We don't have that on the plan for 3.3, if you're interested, contributions are welcome.
*** Bug 148016 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 50015 [details] patch for renaming similar types This is my first attempt of a possible patch. There are some open questions which I marked with a 'XXX' comment in the code.
Thanks, I'll review the patch in early 3.3 M3.
I'm very sorry that I didn't find time to review the patch for M3. Increasing priority to finally get this done for M4.
Just noticed that this is marked P2, and the last comment was that a patch was going to be reviewed for 3.3 M4. Is anything happening here? Do we still believe this is P2?
Sorry, this would be too big a behavior change for M7.
