Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 346981 - Search via "strg + f" does not work
Summary: Search via "strg + f" does not work
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Jubula
Classification: Technology
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 0.9.0   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Project Inbox CLA
QA Contact: Oliver Goetz CLA
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-05-24 09:12 EDT by Tim Winselmann CLA
Modified: 2013-11-19 09:50 EST (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 Tim Winselmann CLA 2011-05-24 09:12:01 EDT 
The search function via "strg + f" does not work. Reproducible in the Test Suite Browser and in the Test Case Browser.

I have searched for an existing string in the view, but the result was "String not found". Than I searched for ".*" in a view that contains entries, but the result was "String not found".
Comment 1 Markus Tiede CLA 2011-05-24 10:59:21 EDT 
Re-enabled basic search support for TSB, TSE, TCB and TCE - though the CNB does currently not work.

http://git.eclipse.org/c/jubula/org.eclipse.jubula.core.git/commit/?id=08c6d6f25d19fa2ae4e14ef4a242d4f7fef40385

There are also selecting related issues (the order of selecting / sometimes selecting fails e.g. search in Samples TSB for .*1.* fails with the selection after the third find-invocation)
Comment 2 Alexandra Schladebeck CLA 2013-11-19 05:59:18 EST 
Find in the component names browser does work now. Find has always been "odd", and since the internal testers are generally the only ones that enter issues for it, I'm inclined to believe that it's not widely used. If it is used it is either sufficient or not annoying enough to enter bug reports.
Comment 3 Oliver Goetz CLA 2013-11-19 09:50:59 EST 
Closed due to comment 2. I could not reproduce the behavior described in comment 0