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.
Summary: | GUI Builder editor should focus at editor after close Find feature instead [Source][Design] buttons | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | platform | Reporter: | Michel Graciano <hmichel> |
Component: | Window System | Assignee: | Stanislav Aubrecht <saubrecht> |
Status: | RESOLVED WORKSFORME | ||
Severity: | blocker | CC: | anebuzelsky, dstrupl, jkovalsky, jrechtacek |
Priority: | P3 | Keywords: | NETFIX |
Version: | 6.x | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Issue Type: | DEFECT | Exception Reporter: | |
Attachments: | Proposed patch |
Description
Michel Graciano
2009-07-10 12:55:52 UTC
In the truth it is an issue at core/multiview project. The attached patch I fixed it and I can't see any regression. I tested it against Matisse and web.xml multview editors and even keyboard navigation with Ctrl+F10 still works as usual. Probably the component and subcomponent should be updated. Created attachment 84612 [details]
Proposed patch
Jirko, review the proposed patch. Thanks. Thanks for the patch a lot. It was integrated in http://hg.netbeans.org/core-main/rev/25cfbc799027. Thanks a lot Jirko! Thanks guys. I will mark it as verified as soon as I get the build. Regards Integrated into 'main-golden', will be available in build *200907140201* on http://bits.netbeans.org/dev/nightly/ (upload may still be in progress) Changeset: http://hg.netbeans.org/main-golden/rev/25cfbc799027 User: Jiri Rechtacek <jrechtacek@netbeans.org> Log: #168397: GUI Builder editor should focus at editor after close Find feature instead [Source][Design] buttons (applied hmichel's patch) v. 200907140201 Michel, this bug is NOT included in the 6.7.1. You verified it only in a trunk build, didn't you? Thanks! Sorry Jiri. I marked it with wrong status. I wished to mark with 67patch-candidate to the next patch if possible. My mistake. Sorry again and thanks for quick fix. :( I think there is any problem to mark with 67patch-candidate right? I know it is an minor fix and could be available in the future. Regards Yes, that's correct. Adding the right keyword however the chances are small because 6.7.1 RC is available since today [1] and we don't plan any 6.7.2 at the moment. [1] http://bits.netbeans.org/netbeans/6.7.1/rc/2009-07-15_02-27-33/ *** Issue 169682 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** While examining http://netbeans.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202097 I have found out that the patch, especially the call to getEditorPane() is causing the slowness in cases when the editor has not been initialized yet. There is the gray rectangle with "please wait" but the call to getEditorPane from this patch blocks the AWT until the background initialisation is done. I have reverted the patch as http://hg.netbeans.org/jet-main/rev/8b5652742ad8 and I am reopening this report. I am not sure whether the original symptoms of this report are still present. If they are another patch needs to be find to fix it. (In reply to comment #13) > While examining > http://netbeans.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202097 > I have found out that the patch, especially the call to getEditorPane() is > causing the slowness in cases when the editor has not been initialized yet. > There is the gray rectangle with "please wait" but the call to getEditorPane > from this patch blocks the AWT until the background initialisation is done. > > I have reverted the patch as > http://hg.netbeans.org/jet-main/rev/8b5652742ad8 > and I am reopening this report. There's similar code here: http://netbeans.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168108 You may want to rollback that fix as well... Thanks David and sorry for the regression. I will evaluate both patches later. I can't reproduce in Product Version: NetBeans IDE Dev (Build 20130107-f7a62bf72db9) Java: 1.6.0_23; Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM 19.0-b09 Runtime: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment 1.6.0_23-b05 System: Windows 7 version 6.1 running on amd64; Cp1250; cs_CZ (nb) Issue #168108 isn't reproducible either. |