Whole Tomato Software Forums
Whole Tomato Software Forums
Main Site | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 Visual Assist
 Technical Support
 "Move implementation to source" bugged!

You must be registered to post a reply.
Click here to register.

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format: BoldItalicizeUnderlineStrikethrough Align leftCenterAlign right Insert horizontal ruleUpload and insert imageInsert hyperlinkInsert email addressInsert codeInsert quoted textInsert listInsert Emoji
   
Message:

Forum code is on.
Html is off.

 
Check to subscribe to this topic.
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
MrDoomMaster Posted - Mar 01 2007 : 3:31:52 PM
Tested on Build: 1548

Take the following custom auto-text for entry "Refactor Create Implementation" (Note the line numbers ##> define the line number to show carriage returns):


01>
02>//===================================================================================================
03>/**
04>**
05>**/
06>$SymbolType$ $SymbolContext$( $ParameterList$ ) $MethodQualifier$
07>{
08>	$end$$MethodBody$
09>}
10>
11>


When I use "Move implementation to source file" refactoring option, the code is properly moved to the source file in the correct format *except* that the comment part on lines 02 to 05 are not placed above the definition of the function. Instead, tons of carriage returns are put in its place.

Test case:

1) Go to VAX Options >> Advanced >> Suggestions >> Edit Autotext button
2) Inside of the Autotext dialog, go to the entry under C++ >> Refactor Create Implementation
3) Note how the "Description" of this autotext entry states explicitly that this format is also used for "Move implementation to source".
4) Make the Refactor Create Implementation code the exact copy of the snippet I posted above, minus the line numbers.
5) Create a test class in a header file, something like this for example:

class Foo
{
public:
    void SomeFunction()
    {
        int blah = 0;
    }
};

6) Once the header is created, create a corresponding source file with the same name and do an #include "" of the header file you just created in step 5. This source file is where the implementation will be moved to.
7) Shift+Right click the method named "SomeFunction()" above and select Refactor >> Move implementation to source.
8) Watch how the custom text (the comments) you placed above the function format definition earlier in the auto text code window never show up when the implementation is moved to the source file.

What should happen:
When a user selects "Move implementation to source", the custom text above the function specified in the auto text code window should be placed above the implementation header line, instead of just empty lines of whitespace.
5   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
support Posted - Mar 17 2007 : 4:07:36 PM
Case 5317 is fixed in build 1549.
MrDoomMaster Posted - Mar 02 2007 : 4:30:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by feline

Compare this with a problem we had a few builds ago with Create Implementation on a template class. In this case a comment in the autotext rule sometimes resulted in VA leaving out the "template<typename T>" line.

In that bug (fixed a few builds ago) the code was invalid, which is a bigger problem than the comment being missing. I am just trying to put bugs into some form of perspective. Some cause major problems, some are just really irritating.

Does this make sense?



Makes perfect sense, but I don't see any points being made. This seems like only a matter of setting the "priority" value for bugs in your internal bug database.
feline Posted - Mar 02 2007 : 07:28:43 AM
Compare this with a problem we had a few builds ago with Create Implementation on a template class. In this case a comment in the autotext rule sometimes resulted in VA leaving out the "template<typename T>" line.

In that bug (fixed a few builds ago) the code was invalid, which is a bigger problem than the comment being missing. I am just trying to put bugs into some form of perspective. Some cause major problems, some are just really irritating.

Does this make sense?
MrDoomMaster Posted - Mar 01 2007 : 10:30:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by feline


I would say that "buggered" is a bit strong though. Yes this is a bug, but I have seen worse problems. At least the code is valid



I am not quite clear on what you mean. Could you emphasize?
feline Posted - Mar 01 2007 : 7:00:16 PM
I am seeing the same effect here. Thank you for the clear description.

I would say that "buggered" is a bit strong though. Yes this is a bug, but I have seen worse problems. At least the code is valid

case=5317

© 2023 Whole Tomato Software, LLC Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000