Community
Participate
Working Groups
The server editor can have multiple pages. I've added a page which extends ServerEditorPart. However, ServerEditor.doSave() does not call doSave() on the children parts / pages. I recognize the idea here is that we should only be editing objects in the IServerWorkingCopy and so the parts themselves shouldn't need to save anything, however our editor would like to keep some data in an xml file in workspace metadata rather than inside the IServer / IServerWorkingCopy. The Javadoc for ServerEditorPart does not state that these methods will not be called, and so I'm assuming they should still be called. Attaching a patch for ServerEditor
Created attachment 144606 [details] Calls doSave() on editor pages
Created attachment 144607 [details] Fixed the ticks count
In theory sounds reasonable to me as long as adopters don't have to implement the doSave() method, will look into it for 3.2 M2
EditorPart already requires an implementation of doSave(), so it should already be in one of the superclass implementations. Subclasses that override will now have it called / respected.
Does this meet the definition of "blocker" as given in http://wiki.eclipse.org/WTP/Conventions_of_bug_priority_and_severity To my naive read, it sounds more like an enhancement request?
According to the conventions, I would group this with expected behaviour which is not present and I'm reclassifying as a normal bug. I do have to wonder, however, why the server team seems to take a fairly long time to review and close out bugs which already include patches attached to the bug.
Nothing says that it should have been calling doSave() on factory-created pages, as far as I can see. I've set the review flag to make it easier for Angel to find.
Nothing explicitly says it should be, however, I would imagine the purpose of adding a page to an editor is so that you can edit more details of the server. An expectation of being able to edit is being able to persist those edits. If the new page cannot persist its changes to the server, then I'd see this as a problem and a gap in expected functionality.
Created attachment 168734 [details] v1.1 Added a null check and updated the copyrights.
* Explain why you believe this is a stop-ship defect. Or, if it is a "hotbug" (requested by an adopter) please document it as such. Although not a stop-ship. The fix is simple and something that adopter requires to implement their function to persist data in a xml file different from the .server file. * Is there a work-around? If so, why do you believe the work-around is insufficient? There might be another way , but reality is that it might be more complex that it would need to be. This patch calls the editorPart.save which is a much simpler and clean solution. * How has the fix been tested? Is there a test case attached to the bugzilla record? Has a JUnit Test been added? I created different servers and launched the server editor * Give a brief technical overview. Who has reviewed this fix? A reviewed the patch submitted by Rob and added a null check and updated the copyrights * What is the risk associated with this fix? low
changes committed to HEAD
released to HEAD
New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/108954
