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

Bug 318199

Summary:	Translation Question - WSW36#392
Product:	[Eclipse Project] Platform	Reporter:	Ross Wagner <rewagner>
Component:	Doc	Assignee:	Platform-Doc-Inbox <platform-doc-inbox>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3	CC:	grant_gayed, john.arthorne
Version:	3.6
Target Milestone:	3.7 M1
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows XP
Whiteboard:

Description Ross Wagner

2010-06-28 11:52:48 EDT

Build Identifier: I20100608-0911

File: eclipse\plugins\org.eclipse.platform.doc.isv\porting\3.6\incompatibilities.html

Source sentence 1:
Clients dependent on the setting of a Spinner control's valid range to a single value to fail.

Question:
Does this mean "Clients that failed because they were dependent on the setting of a Spinner control's valid range to a single value"? If not, please explain.

Source sentence 2:
Clients that were dependent on this case failing now need to check for this condition before setting a Spinner's maximum to a value that would match its minimum value (or vice versa), and not set the value in such cases.

Question:
Does this mean "Clients that failed because they were dependent on this case ... and plese do not set the value in such cases"? If not, please explain.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 John Arthorne

2010-06-28 13:13:33 EDT

(In reply to comment #0)
> Source sentence 1:
> Clients dependent on the setting of a Spinner control's valid range to a single
> value to fail.
> 
> Question:
> Does this mean "Clients that failed because they were dependent on the setting
> of a Spinner control's valid range to a single value"? If not, please explain.

This is a poorly worded sentence. I propose rewriting it to say, "Clients that expected setting a single value range on a Spinner control to fail."  This means, if you expected a failure to occur when setting the range to a single value, you will be affected by this bug (because setting a single value is now supported).


> Source sentence 2:
> Clients that were dependent on this case failing now need to check for this
> condition before setting a Spinner's maximum to a value that would match its
> minimum value (or vice versa), and not set the value in such cases.
> 
> Question:
> Does this mean "Clients that failed because they were dependent on this case
> ... and plese do not set the value in such cases"? If not, please explain.
> 
> Reproducible: Always

I suggest something like "Clients that do not want to allow the spinner range to be a single value must now check for this case and not set the value in such cases."

Comment 2 John Arthorne

2010-06-28 13:15:09 EDT

Actually Grant, "fail" sounds like a strong word here. In reality if you tried to do this in the past, it would just be ignored, right? If so I suggest changing to "Clients that expected setting a single value range on a Spinner control to be ignored.", etc.

Comment 3 Grant Gayed

2010-06-28 14:04:17 EDT

Yes that is the case.  I tried re-writing it with ignored, but in a couple of places it left the meaning a bit ambiguous.  Perhaps "disallowed" is better?

Spinner now allows setting equal minimum and maximum values
What is affected: Clients that expect setting a single value range on a Spinner control to be disallowed.
Description: Prior to Eclipse 3.6, attempts to set a Spinner's value range to a single value were disallowed.  This was done in order to be consistent with other range-based controls in SWT.  However the case of specifying a single integer value as a Spinner's value range is valid, so this is now allowed.  Clients that were dependent on this case being disallowed must now check for this condition before setting a Spinner's maximum to a value that would match its minimum value (or vice versa), and not set the value in such cases.

Comment 4 John Arthorne

2010-06-29 10:57:40 EDT

That sounds good. I have released Grant's new wording in HEAD (3.7 stream).