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 83461 - Parameters after parameter with default value aren't propagated to source
Summary: Parameters after parameter with default value aren't propagated to source
Status: REOPENED
Alias: None
Product: uml
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Synchronization (show other bugs)
Version: 5.x
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: issues@uml
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-08-25 11:15 UTC by bugbridge
Modified: 2009-05-25 21:06 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description bugbridge 2006-08-25 11:15:18 UTC
Original submitter: sergeyp

steps to reproduce:
1. add class to the diagram
2. add operation 'public void op( int x=1, int y)' with edit control
ther is 'public void op( int x)' operation in source
Comment 1 Trey Spiva 2006-10-18 15:56:29 UTC
The generated code is correct.  Java does not support default values for method
parameters.  There is nothing that we can do, if the language does not support
the feature.
Comment 2 Sergey Petrov 2006-10-18 16:06:19 UTC
reproducible with 061018_27
I don't understand your comment,
what should do uml? do not generate operation at all? do not generate several
parameters on uml wish? do you mean we shouldn't generate code for operation if
I'll add some tagged values, constraints etc to operation property (which is not
supported by java)?

why first parameter with unsupported default value goes to code (it seems like
invalide behaviour based on your statement)?
I thin vald behaviour should be generation of all parameters but without defult
values.
Comment 3 Sergey Petrov 2006-10-18 16:07:56 UTC
the issue not about default value generation in source but about missing
parameters :)
Comment 4 Trey Spiva 2006-10-18 16:12:11 UTC
Got it, I missed the fact that the second parameter was not being generated.  I
thought that the issue was about the fact that the default value was not being
added to the code.
Comment 5 Trey Spiva 2006-10-18 16:12:39 UTC
I did not mean to mark it as invalid.