Support for custom options

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Start with the following: 

1. Hyperlink to custom option defintion
2. Support scoping of enum literal values
3. Content-assist for valid custom option names
4. Validation of option values (verify that the value corresponds to the option 
type)

Original issue reported on code.google.com by alr...@google.com on 21 Sep 2011 at 6:33

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Fixed typos in summary.

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 21 Sep 2011 at 6:35

• Changed title: Support for custom options

[GoogleCodeExporter]

r31200b4f9464

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 21 Sep 2011 at 6:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

r291bfce8e47e re55ff130054f r5d291cd15c98 rb50f20251e89 r31200b4f9464       

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 23 Sep 2011 at 11:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

r643e909b40b7

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 23 Sep 2011 at 11:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

r9816863316fc

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 27 Sep 2011 at 12:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

rdb6d64aa9c32

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 27 Sep 2011 at 12:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

rac84ce9029e1, rc38995057aad, r7b950b6b2097, r6ce9d23a47d8, r9ee6addc9124, 
r7cfb8a6e909c, r997e3ad83179, re44a088fe6c1, rebb42f355b3a 

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 3 Oct 2011 at 12:17

[GoogleCodeExporter]

r9ee6addc9124, r7cfb8a6e909c, r997e3ad83179, re44a088fe6c1

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 11 Oct 2011 at 9:00

[GoogleCodeExporter]

r8a6b0662538a, r9c04e9147adb, r1f8f550b1e7d, r38acc3553ae9, r3862ef938213, 
r52c85994a099, r82f947eab730, rf3fa7cd54b4f, rd37699f838c1, rbd9271520e5a, 
r1a51c1440052, r444ff265ee80, rd0911f77dafd, r33441fdeff64, r867997e5a398, 
r43913c0d3e36, r01a622dbc1b6, ra284624135e7, rd06e285ea692, r1ba1502a6424, 
rac84ce9029e1, rc38995057aad, r7b950b6b2097, r6ce9d23a47d8

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 11 Oct 2011 at 9:03

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

r7e8d14b81fca

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 11 Oct 2011 at 9:06

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Alex - before you release 1.0.3 I wanted to run through some testing for the 
code.  Is everything checked in now that you would want tested?

I can run through various aspects of custom options & regressions on Windows 7 
x64.

Anything else you might want looked at while I'm at it?

Original comment by compuwar...@gmail.com on 11 Oct 2011 at 9:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi Ben,

Yes, please let me know about regressions found.

Many thanks!
-Alex

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 12 Oct 2011 at 6:03

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hey Ben,

Sorry for the awkward response. I read your previous message too quickly and I 
thought you already found regressions :D

The major change made to the code base was scoping. Scoping now can find out 
definitions of native options and custom ones. Also I added a new project for 
integration testing. The main tests there are for scoping (since I'm so afraid 
of breaking existing functionality.) Those integration tests need to be ran as 
"JUnit Plug-in Test". Also you can run them headless (by changing settings in 
"Run Configurations.")

I won't release the Open Source version of the editor until you confirm 
everything looks OK. No worries if you for whatever reason (e.g. you are too 
busy) you are not able to test this fix. We can release and let users file bugs 
:)

I'm 99% confident that we won't hit regressions. Hopefully that remaining 1% 
won't bite us back! :)

Cheers,
-Alex

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 12 Oct 2011 at 6:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

All integration and regular unit tests pass for me.

I have 5 failures on UI unit tests.  I'm looking into them now.  Some look like 
bad test cases (like wrong platform path separator).

I'll upload corrected test cases for any that were just defective tests.

Windows 7 x64
Eclipse Indigo 64-bit for RCP & RAP

Original comment by compuwar...@gmail.com on 12 Oct 2011 at 7:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

A few UI tests fail due to a MockitoException ... not sure if that matters or 
is expected.

Another failed due to differing path separators on Windows vs Linux.  Looks 
like it's also expecting to search for something in /usr/local/include which 
would never exist on a windows platform.  

I don't think any of these errors are any reason to delay release - we can 
probably make a issue out of the path one as it seems to relate back to some 
code that is assuming the user is on a 'nix platform when it shouldn't.

I also ran some basic sanity checks manually and the editor appears to be 
working correctly and code compiles for all three supported languages.

Original comment by compuwar...@gmail.com on 12 Oct 2011 at 7:33

Attachments:

• failures.png
• failure-list.txt

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks so much Ben!

The next version (1.0.10) will be released tomorrow. The version numbering 
changed to keep the Google-internal and the Open Source versions in sync.

Cheers!
-Alex

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 12 Oct 2011 at 7:44

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue 135 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 18 Oct 2011 at 11:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue 136 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 18 Oct 2011 at 11:23

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi guys,

I am still seeing this error and I just pulled the latest version.  Is this 
issue closed and should I open a new one?

Ben - you know how reach me if you want to see the error live let me know.

-Mike

Original comment by moofis...@gmail.com on 20 Oct 2011 at 2:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi Mike,

Let me try to reproduce it. I'm sure it was working (I even used the latest 
version for the screenshots in the wiki.)

I reopened Issue 136.

Original comment by alr...@google.com on 20 Oct 2011 at 8:27