New quickfix "Assign parameter to field"?

I frequently invoke the quickfix "Create field for parameter 'foo'" when the field already exists. Idea detects this only later on, and asks "Use existing field '_foo'?"
While this is nice, it is too heavyweight (one dialog and two keystrokes too much).
Can't Idea detect the field right from the start and offer an additional quickfix "Assign Parameter 'foo' to field '_foo'?

Is this inspection from the Inspections Plugin? In that case I would try to implement it myself.

8 comments
Comment actions Permalink


The "Unused Parameter" inspection and it's quickfix are not part of InspectionGadgets, but are core IDEA. Trust me, I'd have fixed the behaviour you describe long ago if it were up to me.

--Dave Griffith

0
Comment actions Permalink

Any JetBrainer wants a nice, little, finger exercise for a Friday evening?

http://www.jetbrains.net/jira/browse/IDEA-2268

0
Comment actions Permalink

Dave Griffith wrote:

The "Unused Parameter" inspection and it's quickfix are not part of InspectionGadgets, but are core IDEA. Trust me, I'd have fixed the behaviour you describe long ago if it were up to me.


Do you think it would be possible to make you the captain of all the
inspections, and remove the distinction between core inspections and
InspectionGadgets?

The reason for this distinction is IMHO not clear to the average IDEA-user.

/Kreiger



Attachment(s):
signature.asc
0
Comment actions Permalink


>Do you think it would be possible to make you the captain of all the inspections, and remove the distinction between core inspections and InspectionGadgets?

To be blunt, what's in it for me? I write inspections/intentions/metrics/visualizations for IDEA partially for fun, partially to deepen my knowlege of software engineering, partially to be a part of the finest piece of software available, and partially to save the world (long story, another time maybe). Taking over maintenance of the IDEA inspections and framework provides nothing towards any of those goals, even if JetBrains were silly enough to outsource it to an amateur. The standard reasons for someone to take such effort (employment, cash) are sadly inapplicable to the case.

--Dave Griffith

0
Comment actions Permalink

Dave Griffith wrote:

To be blunt, what's in it for me?
...
The standard reasons for someone to take such effort (employment, cash) are sadly inapplicable to the case.


Well, i thought that you were getting some kind of compensation, which
you rightly should.

/Kreiger



Attachment(s):
signature.asc
0
Comment actions Permalink

Well, i thought that you were getting some kind of compensation, which you rightly should.

What an exceptionally odd thing for a self-professed open-source advocate to say.

In any case, because the question has come up a few times recently in e-mails, I'll set the record straight publicly. Due to contractual obligations with my day job and family responsibilities, I am unable to accept compensation from or employment with JetBrains, however much I might love to.

--Dave Griffith

0
Comment actions Permalink

Dave Griffith wrote:

What an exceptionally odd thing for a self-professed open-source advocate to say.


Could i please be allowed to talk to you in this forum, without having
to bring up the subject of open source?

I feel a bit insulted by you comparing everything i say to your
prejudices of stereotypical open source advocates. Is it that hard to
see me as a unique individual, with my own unique thoughts?

I'm sorry to have wronged you. Can we please talk about more pleasant
matters?

/Christoffer



Attachment(s):
signature.asc
0
Comment actions Permalink

>Could i please be allowed to talk to you in this forum, without having to bring up the subject of open source?

And that's perhaps the oddest thing possible for an open-source advocate to say! ;) :-<

Apologies for the snark.

--Dave Griffith

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.