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 230289 - Do not overwrite existing postfix
Summary: Do not overwrite existing postfix
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: web
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Knockout (show other bugs)
Version: 7.4
Hardware: PC Linux
: P4 normal (vote)
Assignee: Petr Pisl
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-05-26 19:40 UTC by Vladimir Riha
Modified: 2015-09-09 11:53 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Vladimir Riha 2013-05-26 19:40:36 UTC
Please try:

<div data-bind="if|: true">Test.</div>

where "|" means cursor position. Now invoke cc and select ifnot (focus it and press Enter), result is

<div data-bind="ifnot: : true">Test.</div>


Product Version: NetBeans IDE Dev (Build 201305252300)
Java: 1.7.0_11; Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM 23.6-b04
Runtime: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment 1.7.0_11-b21
System: Linux version 3.8.0-19-generic running on amd64; UTF-8; en_US (nb)
Comment 1 Marek Fukala 2013-05-27 14:14:37 UTC
how is it different from for example css properties completion?

x { co|lor: red; } => invoke cc at pipe and choose color => x { color: lor: red; } --> is this also "bad" ?

AFAIR in some html cc items I do not overwrite the existing text if the prefix + postfix == the inserted text. I think this would be nice to use in general. 

But as for the sample - I agree with P4 as I think this is quite artificial case
Comment 2 Vladimir Riha 2013-05-27 14:30:08 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> how is it different from for example css properties completion?

I'm not saying it is. I think it would be handy not having to remove it manually

> But as for the sample - I agree with P4

So back to P4? I do not expect this use case to happen very often, thus the P4.
Comment 3 Marek Fukala 2013-05-27 14:42:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > how is it different from for example css properties completion?
> 
> I'm not saying it is. I think it would be handy not having to remove it
> manually
So I'll keep this as P3 but just for this, the original case won't be fixed by this change.

Or you want a new bug?
> 
> > But as for the sample - I agree with P4
> 
> So back to P4? I do not expect this use case to happen very often, thus the P4.