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 25814 - {Comment, entry} pairing considers empty lines as comments
Summary: {Comment, entry} pairing considers empty lines as comments
Status: STARTED
Alias: None
Product: utilities
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Properties (show other bugs)
Version: 3.x
Hardware: All All
: P4 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Jan Peska
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-07-19 10:23 UTC by pfelenda
Modified: 2011-09-01 16:00 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description pfelenda 2002-07-19 10:23:16 UTC
How to reproduce ?

a)
- create new properties file
- add some properties, use for this action "Add
property ..." button in editor ( fill all - key,
value and comment )


b) 
-create second properties file
- add some keys, similarly as in a), but fill only
kyes to the dialog


-> see differencies in these files. Use for this
comparing text view 
( In explorer over propeties file select from
context menu 'Edit' )

->In second file is not comments (we are not
entered them), but in GUI form in Editor is showed
comment for first property !?
This is comment of properties file, but not for
first property.
Comment 1 pfelenda 2002-07-19 10:59:24 UTC
Changing priority -> P4.
It is adequate to this issue.
Comment 2 Marek Grummich 2002-07-22 11:24:51 UTC
Set target milestone to TBD
Comment 3 _ pkuzel 2003-02-05 16:30:17 UTC
It is heuristics as spec does not say a word about it.
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/docs/api/java/util/Properties.html#load(java.io.InputStream)

It's a wontfix candidate until we introduce another heuritics:

- e.g. do not pair first comment as it is probably copyright

- introduce notion of sections. Many users now uses something like ##
filename.ext followed by all keys in given file.
Comment 4 pfelenda 2003-02-05 17:45:36 UTC
Ok. I am  moving this from DEFECT to ENHACEMENT.
Am I right ?
Comment 5 _ pkuzel 2003-02-05 17:49:05 UTC
Ok, it's better for another reasons...
Comment 6 Marian Petras 2005-05-03 15:23:52 UTC
This is a reasonable request for enhancement.