Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 359382 - [RBD]EGL Search: Case sensitive search is not correct in certain codition
Summary: [RBD]EGL Search: Case sensitive search is not correct in certain codition
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: z_Archived
Classification: Eclipse Foundation
Component: EDT (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Zhi Zhu CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-09-29 05:31 EDT by Thomas Wu CLA
Modified: 2017-02-23 14:15 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments
PI (186.46 KB, application/x-zip-compressed)
2011-09-29 05:33 EDT, Thomas Wu CLA
no flags Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Thomas Wu CLA 2011-09-29 05:31:42 EDT
Build Identifier: 20110926

Case sensitive search result is not correct in certain codition, and it is related to the case of the first character of search string.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Import PI from attatchment
2. Open EGL search wizard, set Search string as "service_lev2", Search For as "Service", Limit To as "All occurrences", Scope as "Workspace", and click search button. The results return two services named as "Service_lev2" and "service_lev2". 
3. Go back to search wizard, select and click the checkbox of Case sensitive, and make the same conditions with step 2. 

Actual results: There is no record found in results. But we should get the one named "service_lev2". 

Additional info: If I use "Service_lev2" as the Search string, the search results are correct whatever I check Case sensitive or not.
Comment 1 Thomas Wu CLA 2011-09-29 05:33:28 EDT
Created attachment 204275 [details]
PI
Comment 2 Zhi Zhu CLA 2011-09-29 20:29:02 EDT
Thomas, for all the search-related bugs, could you also test against RBD and give a result for whether RBD and EDT are behaving the same, thanks for your additional work
Comment 3 Thomas Wu CLA 2011-09-29 22:33:47 EDT
There is the same issue in RBD8012
Comment 4 Lisa Lasher CLA 2011-11-08 13:22:13 EST
Deferring to 1.0 - this is a low priority defect that also occurs in RBD