search

vi-eclipse / Eclipse-JDT

Umbrella repository for managing a backlog of Eclipse-JDT-related features/issues
0 stars 0 forks source link

Incomplete Type Index / Bug 109084 #4

Open HeikoKlare opened 1 year ago

HeikoKlare commented 1 year ago

Current Behavior

In some cases (with unknown reasons), the type index does not contain all available types, so the type search does not find some types that actually exist. Rebuilding the index via the preferences does not resolve the issue.

Image

The bug has been existing for a long time and does not seem to be fixed by now: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=109084

Expected Behavior

In the best case, the type index should properly contain the expected types. At least, the "rebuild index" operation in the preferences should properly rebuild the index.

Existing Workaround

Delete .metadata.plugins\org.eclipse.jdt.core*.index, and restart Eclipse.

fedejeanne commented 1 year ago

The problem was reproduced in 2023-03 but it was not because of a broken index so applying the workaround did not solve the problem. The problem is not reproducible in 2023-06.

HeikoKlare commented 1 year ago

Why is this one closed if the conducted reproduction does not apply to the issue? The original issue was a broken type index (e.g., because of some application crash during JDT indexing). This led to faulty results when using the index (e.g., when using type search). I don't see how a case where no broken index exists shows that this issue is not reproducible or that the workaround is not applicable.

fedejeanne commented 1 year ago

Sorry, I mixed this one with the (not so) related issue: https://github.com/vi-eclipse/Eclipse-JDT/issues/9

HeikoKlare commented 8 months ago

This is one has been marked as "in work" for half a year: what is the current state?

fedejeanne commented 6 months ago

I left it as "Ongoing" in August because I intended to see if the problem surfaced again, but I see no activity in it and I also have no novel ideas on how to tackle this. Should we set it as "new" again? BTW what happened to "ready"?

No idea why it wen from Ongoing -> In Progress: short

HeikoKlare commented 6 months ago

No idea why it wen from Ongoing -> In Progress: short

I guess it was moved because it does not fulfill our definition of being "ongoing" :-)

Should we set it as "new" again? BTW what happened to "ready"?

I think it should be moved to "ready" then.

fedejeanne commented 6 months ago

No idea why it wen from Ongoing -> In Progress: short

I guess it was moved because it does not fulfill our definition of being "ongoing" :-)

Do we have our definition of Ongoing written somewhere? It was my understanding that as long as there is something going on but there is no "active" work on the ticket then it's "ongoing". I activated some logging back then to see if there was something useful in the logs when the error happened.

HeikoKlare commented 6 months ago

Do we have our definition of Ongoing written somewhere?

Yes, it's given in the description of the backlog state: image