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 226181 - Cannot add breakpoint in gutter when editor does not have focus
Summary: Cannot add breakpoint in gutter when editor does not have focus
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 216601
Alias: None
Product: debugger
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Code (show other bugs)
Version: 7.3
Hardware: PC Windows Vista
: P3 normal (vote)
Assignee: Martin Entlicher
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-02-15 14:48 UTC by mclaassen
Modified: 2013-03-05 15:20 UTC (History)
0 users

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 mclaassen 2013-02-15 14:48:34 UTC

    
Comment 1 mclaassen 2013-02-19 20:11:13 UTC
I started to write this yesterday and then thought I abandoned the bug report.  I am not sure how it got submitted.

In any event, since it is here, I will give it a bit of a summary; it is a real problem that happens to me on a routine basis.  It has been happening for a long time (using the dailies).  However, I have never figured out how to reproduce it effectively.  Yesterday, I had thought I had it figured out, but when that turned out not to be the case, I gave up (or thought I had) on my report.  

What happens is that I will be working along just fine, maybe running my app, and then I will decided to put a break point somewhere.  Sometimes it works.  However, sometimes I click in the gutter nothing happens.  Clicking more times does not help.  But, if I just click in the editor window once and then back in the gutter and my break point is added.
Comment 2 Martin Entlicher 2013-02-27 14:42:36 UTC
IMHO this is a duplicate of issue #216601.
Please reopen if this happens with a different use-case. We'd be hardly able to fix this without knowing when it happens.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 216601 ***
Comment 3 mclaassen 2013-03-05 14:06:24 UTC
I totally agree.  I was having trouble reproducing it because I was looking at the wrong things.  I can't say for sure, of course, but I am comfortable with the assessment that it is 216601.
Comment 4 Martin Entlicher 2013-03-05 15:20:08 UTC
Thanks.