Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 224028 - [Undo] [PackageExplorer] can't delete resource that's gone but appears
Summary: [Undo] [PackageExplorer] can't delete resource that's gone but appears
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 3.4   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Susan McCourt CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-03-25 23:49 EDT by Francis Upton IV CLA
Modified: 2008-09-17 13:57 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Francis Upton IV CLA 2008-03-25 23:49:50 EDT 
Build ID: I20080325-0100

Steps To Reproduce:
1. Do the steps in bug 224025 to cause a resource to stay around after a move undo.
2. Try to delete said resource in the Package Explorer
3. After saying OK to approve the refactoring, gets a Fatal error that it cannot be deleted because it does not exist.

This is probably a regression due to being hooked to the new ltk refactoring stuff.  It should just delete the resource and not complain.


More information:
Comment 1 Susan McCourt CLA 2008-03-26 13:45:18 EDT 
>This is probably a regression due to being hooked to the new ltk refactoring
>stuff.  It should just delete the resource and not complain.

Francis, if you have time can you check against M5?  I would expect it to be broken there, too.  I assume this is a regression introduced earlier in 3.4, in which case there's no rush to fix it for M6, but needs to be looked at for 3.4.
Comment 2 Francis Upton IV CLA 2008-03-26 15:49:09 EDT 
(In reply to comment #1)
> >This is probably a regression due to being hooked to the new ltk refactoring
> >stuff.  It should just delete the resource and not complain.
> 
> Francis, if you have time can you check against M5?  I would expect it to be
> broken there, too.  I assume this is a regression introduced earlier in 3.4, in
> which case there's no rush to fix it for M6, but needs to be looked at for 3.4.
> 

I could not make bug 224025 happen with M5, so instead I just deleted the file (with the command line in the file system), and then tried to delete the resource and I got a local resource is out of sync with the file system error.  Then when I synced using F5 it deleted normally (all this in M5).

With this bug 224025 (in M6), I tried F5 to resync and it did not resync, so there was no way to get the file system in sync.
Comment 3 Francis Upton IV CLA 2008-03-26 16:14:09 EDT 
Sadly I can't seem to reproduce bug 224025 (even in the exact same build), so I don't know how to make this happen again.
Comment 4 Susan McCourt CLA 2008-03-26 17:17:14 EDT 
Thanks for trying, I'll revisit the scenario later when things are calmer before closing.
Comment 5 Susan McCourt CLA 2008-05-23 11:21:24 EDT 
marking 3.5 so we can address this early in the cycle.  We simply ran out of time.
Comment 6 Susan McCourt CLA 2008-09-17 13:57:07 EDT 
Marking WORKSFORME and removing milestone since we can't reproduce it.  Francis, please reopen if you disagree.