| Summary: | Included packages are invisible | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Stephan Zehrer <eclipse> | ||||||
| Component: | UI | Assignee: | JDT-UI-Inbox <jdt-ui-inbox> | ||||||
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | ||||||||
| Version: | 3.0 | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Stephan Zehrer
Please provide a test project which shows the problem. Created attachment 14843 [details]
simple java project
This sample project includes the class A in the package net.zehrer.a and as you
can (hopefully) see only the package net.zehrer.b is visible in the package
explorer.
Actually its the other way around for me. Only the included type & its package net.zehrer.a is visible. net.zehrer.b shows up as a generic folder. Is there some reason you want to include a specific source file even though it would be included by default? Created attachment 15070 [details]
A screenshot of the package explorer
The attached project looks like this screenshot in my eclipse version. (new
clean 3.0.1). Still package a is included but not visible.
As requested this is only a test project to show the bug.
In reality i like to use the include function in some projects because it is
not allways simpler to include all and exclude some part. In some cases it is
simpler only to include some parts.
I see a small mistake, not the package, the only the class a is included. But it does not matter whatever what you are include into the project it is not visible (same behavior if you include the package a instead of the class a). What i don't like is to have all packages include. Does this mean you can't verify this problem? I found another point, the problem occure only if you are in the "Hierarchical" Layout of the Package Explorer (my standard setting). In the "Flat" Layout it looks like your description. Looks like a dup of bug 65240. Moving to JDT UI for comments. |