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 94579 - using shortcut keys to add attribute/operation to class/interface does not default to unnamed as before
Summary: using shortcut keys to add attribute/operation to class/interface does not de...
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: uml
Classification: Unclassified
Component: General Diagram (show other bugs)
Version: 5.x
Hardware: All All
: P2 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Viktor Lapitski
URL:
Keywords: REGRESSION
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-02-06 01:21 UTC by Peter Lam
Modified: 2007-02-07 00:10 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
add attribute or operation with keyboard shortcut (24.53 KB, image/jpeg)
2007-02-06 01:22 UTC, Peter Lam 		Details
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Peter Lam 2007-02-06 01:21:53 UTC 
This is a regression but not sure from which build. I just see this from build
070205_2.

If alt-shift-a or alt-shift-o is used to create attribute or operation in the
class or interface element, the result is different than before. For attribute,
it's not displaying "A" immediately pressing alt-shift-a and "O" for
alt-shift-o. It was displaying "Unnamed" before.

Steps to repro:
- create a java-platform uml project
- create a class diagram
- create a class element on the diagram
- press alt-shift-a or alt-shift-o to see the result
a snapshot for both the attribute and operation is attached
(add-attribute-operation-with-keyboard.jpg)
Comment 1 Peter Lam 2007-02-06 01:22:38 UTC 
Created attachment 38083 [details]
add attribute or operation with keyboard shortcut
Comment 2 Peter Lam 2007-02-06 01:25:11 UTC 
This issue also exists in the platform-independent uml project type as well.
Comment 3 Sergey Petrov 2007-02-06 06:28:46 UTC 
May be related to Issue 86481 fix
Comment 4 Peter Lam 2007-02-06 06:45:48 UTC 
Maybe a regression to the fix of issue 86481, but I don't think it's related to
issue 86481 because issue 86481 was opened in Oct 4, 2006 when this problem was
not yet there.
Comment 5 Viktor Lapitski 2007-02-06 08:18:05 UTC 
yep, it is a regression ( an additional case needed to be considered ) from
86481 and some groundwork related to the functionality from previous fix. Fixed
in release55 branch. Thanks for prompt catching of it.
Comment 6 Peter Lam 2007-02-07 00:10:01 UTC 
Thanks for fixing it so quickly. Verified in build 070206_5.