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.
In these cases the api returns null. The first one is obtained when a file is removed and I didn't update my local file (so it's invalid). The second one is almost the same, someone removed a file from repository but I did some changes over it so it has unresolved conflicts.
In addition, the method getStatusString() from StatusInformation also returns null when these statuses are produced.
Setting future as a Target Milestone. Probably a new FileStatus constant needs to be created in these cases. But perhaps "Unresolved Conflict" and "File had conflicts on merge" can be represented by a single FileStatus?
I'm fine with it. What about you Gus ?
Well, to be honest, the status "Entry invalid" (wich is not "File had conflicts on merge") is quite different from "Unresolved conflict". There are several cases for each one, and there are different procedures to resolve each of this conflicts. It will be fine to have any answer instead of null, but an apropriate answer will be better.
Created attachment 9059 [details] CVS status.htm
This is an exhaustive analisys I made of CVS statuses. I think it would be of help. Don't hessitate to ask if you have any doubt about it.
The table is nice. Changing subcomponent to library and scheduling for 4.0. This is easy to implement.
Thanks. And given that you mentioned the table I would like to add that the thing of being exhaustive doesn't mean it is error free. But, anyway, it helped me to understand the different statuses and I thought it could be usefull for you too. Good luck with the implementation! We'll be waiting 4.0 anxiously! :)
Starting to work on this. I've put the attached table to web: http://javacvs.netbeans.org/servlets/ProjectDocumentList
Fixed in the main trunk: /cvs/javacvs/libsrc/org/netbeans/lib/cvsclient/file/FileStatus.java,v <-- FileStatus.java new revision: 1.8; previous revision: 1.7
Could you please Gus verify the fix ? Are you satisfied with it ? Thanks a lot !
I'm using the stable version that's why I haven't verified it.
Does it mean you won't ever verify it ? Which stable version do you mean ? 3.5 ?
No man. I'm using 3.5.1 sources and we've modified this file temporarily to continue working with the lib 'til 4.0 is ready (if you think this will never appear, well, let me know).
Okay, in such case I am verifying this issue looking directly into the sources. Thanks Gus.
I'm sorry I couldn't help you.