Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build Identifier: 20110615-0604 EL expression in JSP tag file (WEB-INF/tags/*.tag) produce multiple validation warnings. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create Web Project. 2. Create new JSP tag file btn.tag in WEB-INF/tags/ folder with following content: <%@tag body-content="empty" language="java" pageEncoding="UTF-8" isELIgnored="false"%> <%@attribute name="disabled" required="false" rtexprvalue="true" description="true for disabled button."%> <input type="button" ${disabled? 'disabled="disabled"':''} /> 3. Validation of tag will produce 5 warnings for EL expression: - Invalid location of text (${) in tag (<input>). - Invalid location of text (? ') in tag (<input>). - Undefined attribute name (:). - Invalid location of text (''}) in tag (<input>). - Invalid location of text (') in tag (<input>).
Looks like the JSP parser isn't recognizing the EL in the tag itself.
Created attachment 205340 [details] proposed patch
Looks good to me.
Code released to 3_3_Maintenance and HEAD.
.
(In reply to comment #4) > Code released to 3_3_Maintenance and HEAD. Downloaded wtp-M-3.3.2-20111026220513.zip and installed into Eclipse. Multiple warnings are disappeared, but single error with HUGE description is raised instead: Encountered "<EOF>" at line 1, column 12. Was expecting one of: <INTEGER_LITERAL> ... <FLOATING_POINT_LITERAL> ... <STRING_LITERAL> ... "true" ... "false" ... "null" ... "(" ... "-" ... "not" ... "!" ... "empty" ... <IDENTIFIER> ... "not" ... "!" ... "-" ... "empty" ... "true" ... "false" ... <INTEGER_LITERAL> ... <FLOATING_POINT_LITERAL> ... <STRING_LITERAL> ... "null" ... "(" ... <IDENTIFIER> ... <IDENTIFIER> ... <IDENTIFIER> ... <IDENTIFIER> ... <IDENTIFIER> ... <IDENTIFIER> ... <IDENTIFIER> ... JSP example: <input type="text" ${disabled == 'true' ? 'disabled="disabled"' : ''} /> (fragment "= '" in EL expression is marked with red line). Should I reopen this ticket or create a new one?
Thanks for verifying, Victor. Please open a new defect. The problems are fundamentally different.
(In reply to comment #7) > Please open a new defect. Opened bug 362878. Please look - maybe I've forgot something.