| Summary: | context from stack trace population includes irrelevant items | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | z_Archived | Reporter: | Sam Davis <sam.davis> |
| Component: | Mylyn | Assignee: | David Green <greensopinion> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | greensopinion, shawn.minto |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | 3.7 | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows 7 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Bug Depends on: | 360161 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 349624 | ||
|
Description
Sam Davis
Thanks for the feedback Sam. This should be improved. This seems to be picking up on elements from the Error Details header. Created review: http://review.mylyn.org/#change,72 The fix is to ignore class names that are in the default package (ie: a non-empty package name is required). This helps to avoid false-positives when looking for a stack trace in the description. Also adds a unit test to verify that it works. What if the user is actually using the default package? Wouldn't it be better to detect which part of the text is a stack trace (lines that looks something like "at .+\(.+\.java:\d+\)")? (In reply to comment #3) > What if the user is actually using the default package? Wouldn't it be better to > detect which part of the text is a stack trace (lines that looks something like > "at .+\(.+\.java:\d+\)")? Stack traces don't always have the word "at" in them, nor do they always have ".java", or even a line number. It's remarkably difficult to reliably detect all cases. Use of the default Java package is discouraged at best, and is not typical of most development projects. I believe that the current approach is a reasonable compromise. The change looks good to me. Please create a subtask and attach a patch so we can apply it for 3.7. Thanks! bug 360161 created as a subtask, patch attached. Not sure why you asked for a subtask? with bug 360161 resolved, is this still an issue? That was the only issue I saw. Sorry for making you create another task David. I didn't realize this was already a subtask of bug 349624. On the upside, you get credited twice :). No problem... always feels good to get double-credit! |