This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 103445 - erroneous rename for implicit interface implementation
Summary: erroneous rename for implicit interface implementation
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 111953
Alias: None
Product: java
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Refactoring (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Jan Becicka
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-05-07 16:18 UTC by dmitrym
Modified: 2011-01-07 08:07 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description dmitrym 2007-05-07 16:18:38 UTC 
Please see the following code example:
public class C {
    public void foo() {}
}

interface A {
    void foo();
}

class D extends C implements A {
}

"Refactor->rename" doesn't work for the method foo() in interface A or class C.
The corresponding method remains unchanged what leads to compilation errors. 

Even though this behaviour is expected, an unsafe change warning should appear.
Comment 1 Jiri Prox 2007-05-09 11:09:52 UTC 
Which build do you use? I've tried it in current daily build and all is renamed
correctly.
Comment 2 dmitrym 2007-05-10 07:41:02 UTC 
I'm using M9, build 070502.
Comment 3 Jiri Prox 2007-05-10 08:54:32 UTC 
Reproducible

NetBeans IDE Dev (Build 20070509-2243)
1.6.0_02-ea; Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM 1.6.0_02-ea-b02
Linux version 2.6.5-1.358 running on i386
en_US (nb); UTF-8
Comment 4 Jan Becicka 2007-05-22 09:10:28 UTC 
Good catch
Comment 5 Jiri Prox 2007-09-17 21:31:46 UTC 
Obsolete milestone, please reevaluate
Comment 6 dmitrym 2007-10-24 21:18:34 UTC 
NetBeans IDE 6.0 Beta 2 (Build 200710212201)
The behaviour is not changed. I believe the issue is defect rather than enhancement.
Comment 7 Jan Becicka 2011-01-07 08:07:05 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 111953 ***