299024 – [Linked Resources] Can't do SHALLOW move for a container containing links to non-existing locations

Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 299024 - [Linked Resources] Can't do SHALLOW move for a container containing links to non-existing locations

Summary: [Linked Resources] Can't do SHALLOW move for a container containing links to ...

Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 298870

Alias:	None

Product:	Platform
Classification:	Eclipse Project
Component:	Resources (show other bugs)
Version:	3.6
Hardware:	PC Windows XP

Importance:	P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone:	---
Assignee:	Szymon Brandys
QA Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:

Reported:	2010-01-07 05:54 EST by Szymon Brandys
Modified:	2010-01-26 11:46 EST (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Test v01 (1.75 KB, patch) 2010-01-07 06:02 EST, Szymon Brandys	no flags	Details \| Diff
View All 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 Szymon Brandys

2010-01-07 05:54:25 EST

Build id: I20091217-0819

Steps:
I'll attach a test illustrating the issue.

Comment 1 Szymon Brandys

2010-01-07 06:02:08 EST

Created attachment 155484 [details]
Test v01

Comment 2 Serge Beauchamp

2010-01-08 05:40:49 EST

According to my tracing, this occurs because of the following line in ResourceTree.standardMoveFolder():

			if (!force && !isSynchronized(source, IResource.DEPTH_INFINITE)) {
				message = NLS.bind(Messages.localstore_resourceIsOutOfSync, source.getFullPath());
				IStatus status = new ResourceStatus(IStatus.ERROR, source.getFullPath(), message);
				failed(status);


The isSynchronized() is always false because the synchronizeExistence() is always false for that tree.

It seems like we should be able to move linked resources that have broken location, but I'm not sure of why this restriction exists to begin with.

Maybe we should check if the resource is linked before considering it as 'not synchronized', but it seems it would have un-suspected repercussions.

Comment 3 Szymon Brandys

2010-01-08 06:16:45 EST

Thanks Serge. I'm on it already. I think that we should be less restrictive while checking isSynchronized() for SHALLOW move or copy. Links pointing to non-exisitng locations should be treated as synced then.

Comment 4 Serge Beauchamp

2010-01-26 11:31:34 EST

set target

Comment 5 Szymon Brandys

2010-01-26 11:46:57 EST

It's a duplicate. I think I raised it twice accidentally.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 298870 ***