Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 98510 - [ActionSets] visibility element of org.eclipse.ui.actionSets is missing in schema
Summary: [ActionSets] visibility element of org.eclipse.ui.actionSets is missing in sc...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 110209
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 3.1   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Duong Nguyen CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-06-06 10:08 EDT by Markus Stier CLA
Modified: 2006-11-01 11:26 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Markus Stier CLA 2005-06-06 10:08:26 EDT
The documentation of the extensionpoint org.eclipse.ui.actionSets describes a
visibility element which can be used to define visibility of actions.
The schema doesn't define this element as child of the action element.
Comment 1 Nick Edgar CLA 2005-06-06 10:31:49 EDT
<visibility> is not a valid sub-element for <action>s in action sets.
Where in the doc does it suggest this?
Comment 2 Markus Stier CLA 2005-06-06 10:41:36 EDT
(In reply to comment #1)
> <visibility> is not a valid sub-element for <action>s in action sets.
> Where in the doc does it suggest this?
> 
Eclipse 3.1M7: Open plugin.xml, select org.eclipse.ui.actionsets, Open extension
point description. 
third paragraph:
(...)
An action's enablement and/or visibility can be defined using the elements
enablement and visibility respectively. These two elements contain a boolean
expression that is evaluated to determine the enablement and/or visibility. 
(...)

The element <visibility> is defined just below <enablement>.



Comment 3 Nick Edgar CLA 2006-05-10 10:11:28 EDT
This is still a problem in 3.2 M6.  The <visibility> element is described in the actionSets schema, but is not referenced.  This is probably due to the shared include file.
Comment 4 Paul Webster CLA 2006-11-01 11:26:28 EST

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 110209 ***