| Summary: | [PropertiesView] GEF implementation of PropertySheetEntry doesn't apply property changes for editors of type CheckboxCellEditor | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Tools] GEF | Reporter: | David Green <greensopinion> |
| Component: | GEF-Legacy GEF (MVC) | Assignee: | Nick Edgar <n.a.edgar> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | hudsonr |
| Version: | 3.0 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
David Green
Defect found in 3.1M3 Randy, why was this moved to Platform-UI? David seems to be describing a problem in GEF's implementation of PropertySheetEntry. correct, this is a GEF-specific issue. He is referring to our copy of the jface class. JFace has the same bug. Anyway, we will subclassing the jface class soon so our copy of the bug is irrelevant. Please clarify, I'm not seeing the problem. From the opening comment: "org.eclipse.ui.views.properties.PropertySheetEntry ... appears to work properly with CheckboxCellEditor." Also, what do you mean by "the jface class"? The properties view is in org.eclipse.ui.views, not JFace. To be clear: org.eclipse.ui.views.properties.PropertySheetEntry functions correctly, whereas org.eclipse.gef.internal.ui.properties.PropertySheetEntry does not. This is a GEF-specific defect that only occurs when a GEF selection is made and the property sheet is thusly populated with GEF-based PropertySheetEntry instances. My mistake, I suppose our copy is way out of sync with the one in eclipse.ui.views. It looks like we were doing a check to avoid multiple applications of the same value. This would go unnoticed in the platform, but in GEF causes two redundant commands to be executed. So, the class that actually has the bug is being deleted soon. This means if we were working around something the workaround is going away too. Sorry for the confusion. I'll open another bug if I see duplicate calls to applyEditorValue(). *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 61413 *** Can I request that this defect remain open until it is indeed fixed? cancel that last request: presumably bug 61413 when addressed will resolve this issue. |