Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 362480 - MParameter#name is confusing for referring to command parameter identifier
Summary: MParameter#name is confusing for referring to command parameter identifier
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 4.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Mac OS X - Carbon (unsup.)
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Platform-UI-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: stalebug
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-10-31 08:49 EDT by Brian de Alwis CLA
Modified: 2019-11-14 03:49 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 Brian de Alwis CLA 2011-10-31 08:49:04 EDT 
I wasted some time this weekend trying to figure out why a parameterized MHandledMenuItem wasn't being triggered.  It turns out that when defining a command binding, the corresponding command parameter is identified through MParameter#name and not #elementId.  This is a bit confusing as MCommandParameter has a #name attribute too, but it is presumably intended for UI use.

I suggest that we either rename this parameter to something more meaningful, such as "parameterId" — or actually change it to be a reference to the command parameter.

I've documented this in the Eclipse 4 RCP FAQ at:

   http://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse4/RCP/FAQ#Why_is_my_parameterized_handler_not_triggered.3F
Comment 1 Paul Webster CLA 2011-11-03 14:44:49 EDT 
Actually this name is a holdover from the 3.x parameter definitions ... it was not an ID (in that there was no requirement to make it unique).

PW
Comment 2 Remy Suen CLA 2011-11-22 14:43:16 EST 
(In reply to comment #1)
> Actually this name is a holdover from the 3.x parameter definitions ... it was
> not an ID (in that there was no requirement to make it unique).

Is this an INVALID bug then?
Comment 3 Lars Vogel CLA 2019-11-14 03:49:37 EST 
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet.

If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant.

If the bug is still relevant, please remove the "stalebug" whiteboard tag.