This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 252352

Summary: Cannot get owner, priority information from subclass of AbstractNbTaskWrapper
Product: connecteddeveloper Reporter: jijwang
Component: Issuetracking FrameworkAssignee: Tomas Stupka <tstupka>
Status: RESOLVED INVALID    
Severity: normal    
Priority: P2    
Version: 8.0.2   
Hardware: PC   
OS: Windows 7   
Issue Type: DEFECT Exception Reporter:
Attachments: attributemap has no owner, priority.

Description jijwang 2015-05-12 05:29:36 UTC
I create my own issue class derived from AbstractNbTaskWrapper. I could get NbTask but I could not get owner, priority information from ITask. Need to provide a mechanism to retrieve that information.
Comment 1 Tomas Stupka 2015-05-12 10:14:28 UTC
isn't priority and owner in your case also available via .getMappedAttribute ?
Comment 2 jijwang 2015-05-21 01:03:06 UTC
No.

owner and priority are not in the attributeMap when the table is drawn. The owner and priority are TaskTask attributes. The attributesMap only contains 6 items: token, bug_severity, task.common.product, delta_ts, product, Netbeans.task.unseen.

Set a breakpoint in BugzillaIssueNode.getBugzillaIssue(). Perform a query. When it hits the breakpoint, step into IssueNode.getIssueData(). Check this.issueImpl.i.task.delegate
Comment 3 jijwang 2015-05-21 01:04:11 UTC
Created attachment 153772 [details]
attributemap has no owner, priority.
Comment 4 Tomas Stupka 2015-05-21 09:21:47 UTC
> owner and priority are not in the attributeMap when the table is drawn. The
> owner and priority are TaskTask attributes. The attributesMap only contains
> 6 items: token, bug_severity, task.common.product, delta_ts, product,
> Netbeans.task.unseen.
hm, but those fields are rendered in the table with the correct values anyway ..

see BugzillaIssueNode.PriorityProperty.getValue() 
that would be an entry point to find the mentioned .getMappedAttribute() method

as long as that works i see no reason to add new methods ...