3185: Refactor | Rename is broken...leaves you in endless loop...dont use.

Just trying to save you guys the frustration. Rename things by hand or you
may lose all your changes to unsaved files because you'll end up in an
endless loop when trying to use Refactor | Rename.

-


Lately, we seem to be regressing into GPF hell. Any little error is taking
the whole thing down. 10+ restarts today.

Hmmm...


0
33 comments
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Ok, now I'm screwed. There's no way to rename without Refactoring. I
thought there might be another menu item to do a "trust me, I know what I'm
doing...just rename it".

It's down to the command line.



"Michael Morett" <michaelmorett@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ct714b$t0a$1@is.intellij.net...

Just trying to save you guys the frustration. Rename things by hand or

you

may lose all your changes to unsaved files because you'll end up in an
endless loop when trying to use Refactor | Rename.

>

------
Lately, we seem to be regressing into GPF hell. Any little error is

taking

the whole thing down. 10+ restarts today.

>

Hmmm...

>
>


0

I needed to retreat .

I'm back to 3144 - I intend to take a look at the next EAP drop.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Renaming works fine here... ;)

No, it doesn't work fine, but at least it works: As soon as the
exception is thrown you have to click on 'ignore' and then press 'esc'
very quickly to close the dialog box behind. Doing this one or several
times gets you on the track again.

Michael Morett wrote:

Just trying to save you guys the frustration. Rename things by hand or you
may lose all your changes to unsaved files because you'll end up in an
endless loop when trying to use Refactor | Rename.

------
Lately, we seem to be regressing into GPF hell. Any little error is taking
the whole thing down. 10+ restarts today.

Hmmm...


--
Martin Fuhrer
Fuhrer Engineering AG
http://www.fuhrer.com

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Hello Martin,

Another solution, press (Shift+F6) then select 'preview' then 'Ignore' NPE
and then press 'Do refactor'.

Best regards,

--
Alexander Chinaryov
mailto:alexander.chinaryov@ctco.lv
GFS Project - Java Team Leader
C.T.Co.
http://www.ctco.lv
"Programming The Future"

Renaming works fine here... ;)

No, it doesn't work fine, but at least it works: As soon as the
exception is thrown you have to click on 'ignore' and then press 'esc'
very quickly to close the dialog box behind. Doing this one or several
times gets you on the track again.

Michael Morett wrote:

>> Just trying to save you guys the frustration. Rename things by hand
>> or you may lose all your changes to unsaved files because you'll end
>> up in an endless loop when trying to use Refactor | Rename.
>>
>> -


>> Lately, we seem to be regressing into GPF hell. Any little error is
>> taking
>> the whole thing down. 10+ restarts today.
>> Hmmm...
>>


0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Yes, 3144 was a really stable build, 3177 and 3185 are very buggy.

Tom

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Thomas Singer (MoTJ) wrote:

Yes, 3144 was a really stable build, 3177 and 3185 are very buggy.




I'm back on 3177, since half an hour after installling 3185 :(

Alain

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

To Jetbrains:

And this is the reason, why I always struggle for releasing builds SOON
after buggy builds. Otherwise the EAP misses their purpose: to let us find
and report (other) bugs.

So, please give us a fixed build soon. I remember the good old times, where
the next available build had a build number increased by one. Man, that were
times! ;)

Tom

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Tom

>

I remember the good old times, where the next available build had a
build number increased by one. Man, that were times! ;)

>

You're showing your age, here. I even remember the time when my mouse
was gathering dust in a drawer, because I was working with IDEA :(

Alain

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Well, the age. At Jetbrains work 28 years old Senior Software Developers.
What are then we? Methuselah Software Developers?

Tom

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Another solution, press (Shift+F6) then select 'preview' then 'Ignore' NPE
and then press 'Do refactor'.


Not true.

I've been down this road before on another thread here. The Ignore button
doesn't always work. I always try it, but more often than not, it doesn't
work. I'm (almost) at the point of ignoring the Ignore button.

The whole purpose of that button is to skip the error and continue working.
So while we are trying to work around some bugs, the biggest problem is that
there is a major bug in the error reporting dialog system that doesn't allow
you to ignore the error. The intent of that button is appreciated, but it
simply doesn't work.

If I had my way, I'd pull one developer off of whatever they are working on
and ask him to nail down the Ignore button functionality. Not doing that
will force people (as we have seen) to revert to earlier versions depriving
JB of more bug reports on the most recent build.



0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

The exception probably is happening during the paint of the dialog
behind the shutdown/ignore dialog. When you press ignore buton, the
dialog behind tries to paint and... boom!... exception again. If you
keep the Escape key pressed, most of times, it will close both dialogs.

What JetBrains guys could do is detect that and close the "behind"
dialog when we press ignore button.

Franklin.

Michael Morett wrote:
>>Another solution, press (Shift+F6) then select 'preview' then 'Ignore' NPE
>>and then press 'Do refactor'.


Not true.

I've been down this road before on another thread here. The Ignore button
doesn't always work. I always try it, but more often than not, it doesn't
work. I'm (almost) at the point of ignoring the Ignore button.

The whole purpose of that button is to skip the error and continue working.
So while we are trying to work around some bugs, the biggest problem is that
there is a major bug in the error reporting dialog system that doesn't allow
you to ignore the error. The intent of that button is appreciated, but it
simply doesn't work.

If I had my way, I'd pull one developer off of whatever they are working on
and ask him to nail down the Ignore button functionality. Not doing that
will force people (as we have seen) to revert to earlier versions depriving
JB of more bug reports on the most recent build.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

I could not possibly agree with you more. I don't often hear mention of the eclipse model. Is it too time consuming?

http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/index2.php

They have several sets of builds. They have the nightly builds which could be very buggy, or it might have fixed a lot of bugs. They have official release builds. And they have several levels in between (milestones and such).

It would seem quite possible to automate this process with a script. It is obvious for people interested in stable builds to download the file they want. Likewise, people actively interested in the EAP (probably the most helpful ones for finding bugs) would be able to download builds far more often, not have to struggle through the really bad builds for long, and would be able to provide considerably more useful bug reports.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Tom,

Back in the old days we used to make builds as we needed them for EAP, nowdays the numbers are assigned by the nightly build system, so this is not a really fair comment :)

Eugene

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Kirk! Long time!

Actually, nothing is preventing us from publishing nightly builds except the traffic it would create. We were discussing it quite some time ago and came to a conclusion that we could do that if there are people who want them.

Eugene

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Hi Eugene! :)

Perhaps in the past when the builds came more often the need for such a system seemed less important. Now that builds arrive less frequently many of us long for a way to get access to those in-between builds -- especially when they notice the bug they are waiting on fixed in tracker.

I think offering nightly builds in addition to semi-milestone builds (what the current build pattern seems to resemble) would be ideal but I'd be happy with just more frequent regular builds.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Maybe you have different expectations, but for me the ignore button does
exactly what it should - always, reliably.

Michael Morett wrote:
>>Another solution, press (Shift+F6) then select 'preview' then 'Ignore' NPE
>>and then press 'Do refactor'.


Not true.

I've been down this road before on another thread here. The Ignore button
doesn't always work. I always try it, but more often than not, it doesn't
work. I'm (almost) at the point of ignoring the Ignore button.

The whole purpose of that button is to skip the error and continue working.
So while we are trying to work around some bugs, the biggest problem is that
there is a major bug in the error reporting dialog system that doesn't allow
you to ignore the error. The intent of that button is appreciated, but it
simply doesn't work.

If I had my way, I'd pull one developer off of whatever they are working on
and ask him to nail down the Ignore button functionality. Not doing that
will force people (as we have seen) to revert to earlier versions depriving
JB of more bug reports on the most recent build.



--
Martin Fuhrer
Fuhrer Engineering AG
http://www.fuhrer.com

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

In article <33232374.1106786047131.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net>,
Eugene Belyaev <beg@jetbrains.com> wrote:

Kirk! Long time!

Actually, nothing is preventing us from publishing nightly builds except the
traffic it would create. We were discussing it quite some time ago and came
to a conclusion that we could do that if there are people who want them.

Eugene


I'll take one please :)

R

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Hello Eugene,

EB> Tom,
EB>
EB> Back in the old days we used to make builds as we needed them for
EB> EAP, nowdays the numbers are assigned by the nightly build system,
EB> so this is not a really fair comment :)
EB>
EB> Eugene
EB>

Just the nostalgia speaking. We oldsters still long for the good old times
:)

Carlos

PS: count me in for the night shot.


0

In India after a couple of years you become a Senior Software Developer ;) Agreed we dont do much of a development but more of services.

Here's a general overview of Job Ads that we got here.

CTO 12yrs
VP 8 - 10yrs
PM,Architect 6 - 8yrs
PL,TL 4 - 6yrs
SSD 2yrs
Freshers

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Cool, then I'm a CTO :]

Tom

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Martin Fuhrer wrote:

Maybe you have different expectations, but for me the ignore button does
exactly what it should - always, reliably.


I guess the problem is that the IDEA "ignore exception" button only
ignores one instance of the exception, and still reports the same
exception the next time it happens. This is by design and not a bug,
but that might not be obvious in the user interface. You could also
imagine being able to ignore all instances of the same exception for the
remainder of the session. The exception dialog in Omea Pro works that
way, and it's written by the same company.

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Yeah, Senior VP. One more year and I'm promoted to CIO. I better tell
them to get ready to clear that corner office out for me.

Norris Shelton
Sun Certified Java Programmer




Thomas Singer (MoTJ) wrote:

Cool, then I'm a CTO :]

>

Tom

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

How about if you publish a link to people who have bugs that are fixed
in the build?

Talk about motivation to find bugs!!!

Norris Shelton
Sun Certified Java Programmer




Eugene Belyaev wrote:

>Kirk! Long time!
>
>Actually, nothing is preventing us from publishing nightly builds except the traffic it would create. We were discussing it quite some time ago and came to a conclusion that we could do that if there are people who want them.
>
>Eugene
>

>

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Here is a suggestion that may give the starving masses their EAP fix,
without killing your bandwidth. What if once a week, you publish a
build. Saturday (or Friday night), you publish the last known workable
build (in case Friday's build is fuxor).

Norris Shelton
Sun Certified Java Programmer




Norris Shelton wrote:

How about if you publish a link to people who have bugs that are fixed
in the build?

>

Talk about motivation to find bugs!!!

>

Norris Shelton
Sun Certified Java Programmer

>
>
>
>

Eugene Belyaev wrote:

>
>> Kirk! Long time!
>>
>> Actually, nothing is preventing us from publishing nightly builds
>> except the traffic it would create. We were discussing it quite some
>> time ago and came to a conclusion that we could do that if there are
>> people who want them.
>>
>> Eugene
>>
>>
>>

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

In article <41F8F1D3.4070804@yahoo.com>,
Norris Shelton <i.hate.spam@yahoo.com> wrote:

How about if you publish a link to people who have bugs that are fixed
in the build?


Getting my name published because I found bugs won't want to make me
find more, I find enough, and spend enough time finding them. Also I
doubt that this is a seriously important piece to divert the energy of
the JB engineers to such a lame task. Just look at Jira and see who
reported it if it's important to you to know who filed the most bugs,
you can search by that.

R

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Hello Jonas,

>> Maybe you have different expectations, but for me the ignore button
>> does exactly what it should - always, reliably.
>>
JK> I guess the problem is that the IDEA "ignore exception" button only
JK> ignores one instance of the exception, and still reports the same
JK> exception the next time it happens. This is by design and not a
JK> bug, but that might not be obvious in the user interface. You could
JK> also imagine being able to ignore all instances of the same
JK> exception for the remainder of the session. The exception dialog in
JK> Omea Pro works that way, and it's written by the same company.

The "Ignore" checkbox in Omea ignores all exceptions with a specific stacktrace.
If the code throwing the exception is called from multiple places, the different
stacktraces will need to be ignored separately.

--
Dmitry Jemerov
Omea Project Leader
JetBrains, Inc.
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

In article <824421632424463360169344@news.intellij.net>,
Dmitry Jemerov (JetBrains) <yole@jetbrains.com> wrote:

Hello Jonas,

>> Maybe you have different expectations, but for me the ignore button
>> does exactly what it should - always, reliably.
>>
JK> I guess the problem is that the IDEA "ignore exception" button only
JK> ignores one instance of the exception, and still reports the same
JK> exception the next time it happens. This is by design and not a
JK> bug, but that might not be obvious in the user interface. You could
JK> also imagine being able to ignore all instances of the same
JK> exception for the remainder of the session. The exception dialog in
JK> Omea Pro works that way, and it's written by the same company.

The "Ignore" checkbox in Omea ignores all exceptions with a specific
stacktrace.
If the code throwing the exception is called from multiple places, the
different
stacktraces will need to be ignored separately.


That's fine, the stacktraces are see right now are from one place, the
subversion plugin integration (not the javaSVN code underneath) and it's
always the same exception. let me ignore it.

R

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Jonas Kvarnström wrote:

You could also
imagine being able to ignore all instances of the same exception for the
remainder of the session. The exception dialog in Omea Pro works that
way, and it's written by the same company.


That's been suggested looong ago but it ended up in the dark "To be discussed"
dungeon: http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=16392

Sascha

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Robert S. Sfeir wrote:

>>How about if you publish a link to people who have bugs that are fixed
>>in the build?


Getting my name published because I found bugs won't want to make me
find more, I find enough,


I thought he meant that only those people who reported a bug that has
now been fixed should be given a link to the new build (up to the time
when a standard EAP build is released to everyone, of course).

0
Avatar
Permanently deleted user

Correct.

Norris Shelton
Sun Certified Java Programmer




Jonas Kvarnström wrote:

Robert S. Sfeir wrote:

>
>>> How about if you publish a link to people who have bugs that are
>>> fixed in the build?
>>
>>
>> Getting my name published because I found bugs won't want to make me
>> find more, I find enough,
>
>

I thought he meant that only those people who reported a bug that has
now been fixed should be given a link to the new build (up to the time
when a standard EAP build is released to everyone, of course).


0

Please sign in to leave a comment.