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 24891 - Widen the description field.
Summary: Widen the description field.
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: obsolete
Classification: Unclassified
Component: collabnet (show other bugs)
Version: 3.x
Hardware: Sun Solaris
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: support
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 50893
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2002-06-17 20:10 UTC by ivan
Modified: 2015-12-17 12:29 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description ivan 2002-06-17 20:10:27 UTC
Could you please widen the description field. 
It's really awkward to type text and paste
readable sample code into something this narrow.
Comment 1 kat 2002-06-18 19:30:16 UTC
Are you referring to the "Additioal Comments" field in issuezilla?
Assume so but would like to be sure. 
I would think it might more appropriate to attach sample code to the
issue as a file to preserve its characteristics. 

However, I can inquire about widening the field if desired once I am
certain which one you refer to. Also which browser are you using? 

Comment 2 ivan 2002-06-18 20:15:25 UTC
On a fresh bug the field is titled "Description".
Subsequently it's titled "Additional Comments".
I just checked and Description is a bit narrower than
Additional Comments. For example see my initial Description
below and how it's narrower than your Additional Comments.
I think both deserve to approach 80 columns.

Sometimes you want to interject comments, or
draw <----------'s in the sample code.
Attachments aren't always the best.

I'm using NS 4.79.
Comment 3 kat 2002-06-18 20:33:40 UTC
Understood. I have entered the request as pcn10183.
Comment 4 Unknown 2002-08-21 22:07:07 UTC
Requested an update on this from Engineering.
Thanks,
Kristen
Comment 5 Unknown 2002-10-30 00:43:17 UTC
PCN10183 was closed as a duplicate of PCN11230. We will 
continue to track this request as 11230.

A target milestone has not yet been assigned to this 
issue. Our plan is to update the issue as soon as we have 
more information from Product Management. The support team 
does check on these issues regularly. Please let us know 
if there are any additional considerations for this 
enhancement or concerns on the timeframe for the next 
update.
Thanks,
Jan
Comment 6 Unknown 2002-10-30 23:03:07 UTC
Change in our Update Plan:
Our plan is to update this issue in 2 weeks. Please let us 
know if there are any additional thoughts on this issue or 
concerns about the timeframe for the next update.
Jan
Comment 7 Unknown 2002-11-02 07:26:22 UTC
Update: This is being considered for a Truckee release.
Action Plan: Awaiting update from Product Management
Next Update: Within 2 weeks
Thanks,
Kristen
Comment 8 Unknown 2002-11-20 08:08:06 UTC
Update: There is no new information on this issue yet.
Action Plan: Check in on this issue again during the first week of
December.
Next Update: By 12-6-02
Comment 9 jveres 2003-01-09 00:22:17 UTC
update: the management considers this request for truckee 2. Please
note it's a plan at this time.

Action plan: monitor internal issue pcn 11230 for updates

next update: when it is available from internal issue
Comment 10 Unknown 2003-04-13 22:57:33 UTC
Here is the latest update on this issue.


Expanding this issue to include all string attributes, not just long ones.

We need to consider this for Truckee 2

Eric
Comment 11 Unknown 2003-07-30 12:22:55 UTC
Update: Setting the status of this issue to Resolved, 
Fixed. The solution for this issue has a target milestone 
of "Truckee2".
Action Plan: CollabNet support will review this issue 
during the upgrade to this release to confirm its 
resolution. If there are problems with the solution we will 
reopen this issue. If the solution appears to be working, 
we will reassign the issue to the original poster, 
requesting confirmation The original poster can then set 
the status to "Closed" or "Reopened" if necessary.

Next Update: CollabNet support will review this issue 
during the staging process for the next upgrade.

-Priya.
Comment 12 ivan 2004-07-15 00:04:26 UTC
It's been ~ 2 years ...
You managed to revamp the netbeans web look and feel twice in this
time, the second time wrecking it such that my netscape gets blank 
pages and you can't widen a textfield?

Look, bugs aren't about fields and records but about well written
descriptions. They are the gist of the communication in a bug report.
If we can't write good bug reports, when the main
description is hard to read as you type it in, when you
have to battle the browsers puny text editor which doesn't
wrap they way you want and can't do auto-indent ...
you get poor communication and completely defeat the whole
purpose of issuezilla.
I'm reopening this because I think I have a very valid point
notwithstanding that no-one else might've complained.


Comment 13 jcatchpoole 2004-07-15 12:22:29 UTC
Sorry to wreck the site for you Ivan.  Not sure what you mean about
blank pages/widening text fields, perhaps you should file an issue or
include some more specific details.  Pls bear in mind my comments on
nbdiscuss about the new design not working well for very old browsers.

The "Additional Comments" textarea in an already open issue is 70
chars wide, which I think is perfect.  The "Description" textarea for
a new issue is just 50 chars, which I think is too small.  Since these
values are hardcoded in IssueZilla's cgi, they are not something that
we (Sun) can change ourselves, but would need to ask CollabNet to do.
 AFAIK they have been fixed at these values since the launch of nb.org.

We could try tweaking these with CSS (and had done so before, eg see
issue 34967) but I think a better soloution would be to change the
source html, or at least give the IZ textareas a unique css id we can
address.

Collab, I believe we have discussed this a long time ago, but I don't
recall the outcome - can we either change the initial Description
field width to 70 chars, same as the Additional Comments field is, or
give both textareas a unique css id that we could style via our css
file ?  Thanks.
Comment 14 Unknown 2004-07-19 10:55:24 UTC
This issue is planned to be fixed in Danube release of SC.

- Priya
Comment 15 Unknown 2004-07-22 13:02:08 UTC
Updating whiteboard.
Comment 16 jcatchpoole 2004-09-15 10:22:11 UTC
*** Issue 49048 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 17 cezariusz 2004-09-15 10:53:09 UTC
I vote for this issue. When entering a new issue, I can only insert 
49 characters per line - it's way too low.
For additional comments it allows 69 characters - much better, but I 
would suggest at least 80 characters in both cases.

Testing:
111111111122222222223333333333444444444455555555556666666666777777777
788888888889999999999000000000011111111112222222222333333333344444444
44555555555566666666667777777777888888888899999999990000000000
Comment 18 jcatchpoole 2004-09-15 11:03:07 UTC
I couldn't find a roadmap on either sourcecast.com or collab.net, so
I've no idea when "Danube" is planned.  Collab, considering the age of
this issue (over 2 years!!!), and the (apparent) simplicity of the
fix, is there any chance we can address this sooner ?
Comment 19 Unknown 2004-09-16 10:19:53 UTC
Jack:

I have updated the internal issue for knowing the possibility of 
applying this in IZ. Will update again once i get the response from 
the engineer.

Thanks,
Priya
Comment 20 Unknown 2004-11-03 21:27:04 UTC
This won't make it into IZ. This is considred for Hudson (Q2, 2005) 
in the PT module(successor to IZ).

Have updated the Keywords accordingly. 
Would also help to have a business impact to determine the 
criticality of this issue. Otherwise we will go with the values set 
in the keywords. Marking this as RESOLVED->REMIND.
Comment 21 Unknown 2004-12-01 12:01:59 UTC
As this issue is specific to IZ, we can find the difference in 
description field width in 2.6 than we had in 1.1.3 so can verify 
this as soon as NB is up on the staging site.

As Ani mentioned this can be expected for PT in the Hudson release 
whihc this issue is not covering about. So i am moving this 2.6 
issues list for verifying int he upgrade.


Comment 22 Unknown 2004-12-01 12:03:02 UTC
Moving this to 2.6 issue verification list.
Comment 23 Unknown 2005-04-22 07:01:40 UTC
This shold be fixed now with this upgrade.
Comment 24 ivan 2005-04-22 21:05:50 UTC
Hallelujah!
Comment 25 Marian Mirilovic 2009-11-08 02:30:27 UTC
We recently moved out from Collabnet's infrastructure
Comment 26 trinityalice2 2015-12-17 12:29:03 UTC
This is best describe by netbeans and also an essay update at speedy essay.. http://www.speedyessay.co.uk/buy-essay-online.php