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 168906 - Excludes not handled by project tree and tasklist
Summary: Excludes not handled by project tree and tasklist
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 167848
Alias: None
Product: java
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Source (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Jan Lahoda
Depends on:
Blocks: 49026
  Show dependency tree
Reported: 2009-07-21 16:20 UTC by Antonin Nebuzelsky
Modified: 2009-09-21 11:23 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Antonin Nebuzelsky 2009-07-21 16:20:18 UTC
Reported by a user who does not have IZ account yet. I will ask the user to put himself on CC after he creates an IZ

I excluded some files in the project properties "Configure Includes & Excludes", but noticed that the tasks window lists
errors for the excluded files and the project tab lists the error icon next to the package even though no errors are
listed when the package is expanded in the project tab. The project successfully builds without error.

Closing and reopening the IDE didn't fix the problem for me -- I still see errors listed next to the packages in the
Projects tab.
Comment 1 Jesse Glick 2009-07-22 00:36:44 UTC
The Ant-based project type should be reporting the incl/excl configuration (and any changes thereto) in the correct
places. It is up to java.source and tasklist to pay attention.
Comment 2 tecnotron 2009-08-18 21:41:59 UTC
I have the same problem, the excluded files are still marked as erroneous in the tree.

This is a bug, because if they are excluded I dont want to see them, I want to ignore.
Comment 3 Antonin Nebuzelsky 2009-09-07 12:54:16 UTC
Not sure why this is a P5 and under ide/ui now. Changing back to correct values.
Comment 4 David Strupl 2009-09-07 13:55:03 UTC
Isn't this a duplicate of #170231?
Comment 5 Jesse Glick 2009-09-11 02:41:27 UTC
Yes, I think so.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 170231 ***
Comment 6 Jan Lahoda 2009-09-21 11:22:47 UTC
Dupe of issue #167848, IMO.
Comment 7 Jan Lahoda 2009-09-21 11:23:26 UTC

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 167848 ***