it is really frustrating that i have to do this manually now. before
all i had to do was checkout the project and it was all set. wicket
shares my workspace with other projects so the workspace-default is
not going to work.

can we drop the format def on wicket.apache.org and configure the
maven plugin to set it up:
http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-eclipse-plugin/examples/load-code-styles.html

-igor

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'll test this soon.
> I'll update the docs for IDEA too if needed.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Sven Meier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I've added a hint to the Idea instructions.
>>
>> Regards
>> Sven
>>
>>
>> On 11/06/2013 10:12 AM, Vojtěch Krása wrote:
>>
>>> You should also specify values for "Class count to use import with '*'"
>>> and
>>> "Names count to use static import with '*'", since these values are
>>> not in EclipseCodeFormat.xml,
>>> and differs between Idea and Eclipse by default.
>>>
>>>
>>> V.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/11/6 Sven Meier <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>  Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I removed all org.eclipse.jdt.[core|ui].prefs from the repo as
>>>> discussed.
>>>> EclipseCodeFormat.xml is updated now to our latest and greatest code
>>>> format
>>>> (which might differ between 6.x and master).
>>>>
>>>> Eclipse users should run "mvn eclipse:eclipse" to regenerate
>>>> org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs, then (re-)import EclipseCodeFormat.xml and
>>>> use
>>>> it as the default for your Wicket workspace(s).
>>>> I've added a paragraph about the recommended Eclipse setup here:
>>>> http://wicket.apache.org/learn/ides.html
>>>>
>>>> Could an Idea user please confirm that the format plugin (
>>>> http://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/6546) works as expected?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Sven
>>>>
>>>> On 11/05/2013 12:05 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Sven Meier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   IMHO we should have one authoritative source for our source format
>>>>> only.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether this is EclipseCodeFormat.xml or something else can be dicussed
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the other mail thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently all org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs have already diverged from
>>>>>> EclipseCodeFormat.xml (perhaps they even differ between each other?),
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> I'm +1 to remove those settings from the repo as Martin has suggested.
>>>>>> I can live with having to configure my Wicket workspace(s) once by
>>>>>> importing EclipseCodeFormat.xml.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if no one objects, I'll update EclipseCodeFormat.xml from the
>>>>>> current
>>>>>> settings in wicket-core and apply Martin's patch afterwards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I'm +1.
>>>>> With the plugin that Rusi suggested in the other thread I can import
>>>>>    EclipseCodeFormat.xml in Intellij IDEA and hopefully the formatting
>>>>> will
>>>>> be the same for all of us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Sven
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/04/2013 04:42 PM, Martin Funk wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   not quite
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if the org.eclipse.jdt.ui.prefs are not present eclipse will fall back
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the workspace setting esp. formatter.
>>>>>>> The formatter profile as I described it in the attachment to
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5399
>>>>>>> has to be imported into the workspace once.
>>>>>>> If one has to follow more than one code formatting rulesets, than they
>>>>>>> have to be set for each
>>>>>>> project. The setting of the formatter profile will be written to
>>>>>>> org.eclipse.jdt.ui.prefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 04.11.2013 um 16:25 schrieb Sven Meier <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Ok, removing org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs and
>>>>>>> org.eclipse.jdt.ui.prefs
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  easy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But without these files the Eclipse project settings (Java Code Style
>>>>>>>> ->
>>>>>>>> Formatter) have to be adjusted manually for each Wicket module after
>>>>>>>> "mvn
>>>>>>>> eclipse:eclipse" :(.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sven
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2013 09:58 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can someone of other Wicket code developers take a look at
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/56 ?
>>>>>>>>> This is a pull request with some changes/updates to Eclipse's
>>>>>>>>> .settings/
>>>>>>>>> (required by newer versions of Eclipse ?!).
>>>>>>>>> I don't use Eclipse and I cannot decide whether the PR is good or
>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/57/commits is another PR from
>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>> Funk that has some improvements to Wicket's unit tests that I'd like
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> merge but I cannot because it depends on PR 56.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Additionally I'd like to ask all Eclipse users to disable the "auto
>>>>>>>>> format
>>>>>>>>> the whole file" feature.
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/mafulafunk/wicket/commit/
>>>>>>>>> 0aac81f393047865088864c6b299ce1e022ce1fa
>>>>>>>>> (part
>>>>>>>>> of PR 57) has such formatting changes that we agreed should not be
>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>> with functional changes because they add a lot of noise that makes
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>> review and git bisect sesssions a lot harder.
>>>>>>>>> Lately I have seen such changes in Sven's commits as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please configure Eclipse to not auto format or to format only the
>>>>>>>>> changed
>>>>>>>>> code, but not the whole file.
>>>>>>>>> If this is not possible with Eclipse then you can use "git add -p"
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> select only the functional changes in one commit and all formatting
>>>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>>> ones in another one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM, mafulafunk <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    GitHub user mafulafunk opened a pull request:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/57
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        Assert that instance of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        Ok,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        this is two commits aa422c1 is just because the eclipse
>>>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>>>> files
>>>>>>>>>> get in the way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        The commit 0aac81f was inspired by a non informativ test
>>>>>>>>>> fail.
>>>>>>>>>>        Like the assert
>>>>>>>>>>        assertTrue(factory.getFieldValue(field, obj) instanceof
>>>>>>>>>> ILazyInitProxy);
>>>>>>>>>>        simply fails with no further information.
>>>>>>>>>>        As org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers is already pulled into the
>>>>>>>>>> classpath
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>> junit it might be ok to transform the given assertTrue to:
>>>>>>>>>>        assertThat(factory.getFieldValue(field, obj),
>>>>>>>>>> instanceOf(ILazyInitProxy.class));
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        Now when the assertion fails the value of the first
>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>> printed
>>>>>>>>>>        in the test output.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        $ git pull https://github.com/mafulafunk/
>>>>>>>>>> wicketassertThatInstanceOf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch
>>>>>>>>>> at:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/57.patch
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>> commit aa422c16a8711c43e03b65cec7148afd53153ac5
>>>>>>>>>> Author: Martin Funk <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> Date:   2013-10-28T19:03:09Z
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        remove eclipse jdt.core and jdt.ui prefs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> commit 0aac81f393047865088864c6b299ce1e022ce1fa
>>>>>>>>>> Author: Martin Funk <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> Date:   2013-11-03T21:20:56Z
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        Refactor Testcases to make failing tests more informative:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        Refactor
>>>>>>>>>>        assertTrue(factory.getFieldValue(field, obj) instanceof
>>>>>>>>>> ILazyInitProxy);
>>>>>>>>>>        to
>>>>>>>>>>        assertThat(factory.getFieldValue(field, obj),
>>>>>>>>>> instanceOf(ILazyInitProxy.class));
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        Now when the assertion fails the value of the first
>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>> printed
>>>>>>>>>>        in the test output.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>

Reply via email to