Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 15511

Summary: Member filter action no longer intuitive
Product: [Eclipse Project] JDT Reporter: Dani Megert <daniel_megert>
Component: UIAssignee: Erich Gamma <erich_gamma>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: normal    
Priority: P3 CC: akiezun, m.moebius
Version: 2.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: PC   
OS: Windows NT   
Whiteboard:

Description Dani Megert CLA 2002-05-08 07:00:20 EDT
Smoke For 20020508 (build 20020502 + exported plug-ins)

I would expect to see all elements either 
- if all buttons are checked
or
- if all are unchecked but not when there's a mix

Note that even after the change we are still inconsistent with the Debugger:
they initially disable the filters while we enable them.
Comment 1 Adam Kiezun CLA 2002-05-08 08:42:50 EDT
yes, this is wrong
some buttons work as filters, some not
Comment 2 Erich Gamma CLA 2002-05-08 18:56:50 EDT
we will get new artwork for the public filter to emphasize the fact that it is 
a filter.
Comment 3 Adam Kiezun CLA 2002-05-10 08:27:41 EDT
is it really an artwork problem?
i think it is simply a bad idea to mix filter and non-filter buttons.
it actually bit be 3 times just today.
Comment 4 Dani Megert CLA 2002-05-10 08:33:27 EDT
Agree with Adam. It's not just artwork. And the fact that the tool tips are no
longer dynamic make it even worse.
Comment 5 Martin Möbius CLA 2002-05-13 11:04:46 EDT
0508
Make it least consistent. The sort button is dynamic, the others are not.

To add, it's not good to mix methods- and field filters. I can only see a 
static main method if i choose to show static members. But now i also see 
static fields, which i don't want.
The old behaviour was good. Why change it?
Comment 6 Genady Beryozkin CLA 2002-05-13 12:30:17 EDT
I agree that the old behavior was more intuitive.
please bring it back
Comment 7 Erich Gamma CLA 2002-05-14 12:38:56 EDT
we will change it see 15946

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15946 ***