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 82980 - Multiplicity would not take effect at param's creation(using parameters window) time
Summary: Multiplicity would not take effect at param's creation(using parameters windo...
Alias: None
Product: uml
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Diagram Class (show other bugs)
Version: 5.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: issues@uml
: 84289 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-08-18 13:14 UTC by Andrew Korostelev
Modified: 2009-05-25 21:06 UTC (History)
0 users

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 Andrew Korostelev 2006-08-18 13:14:57 UTC
Steps :
1. Create a javap latform UML project
2. Create a class diagram and add a class element to it
3. Name the class element and add an operation.
4. From the proprties window of the operation, bring up parameters window.
5. Start crating a new parameter, INCLUDING Multiplicity and click OK.

Issue :
In realtily, Multiplicity added during param's creation would not take effect ...
Comment 1 Andrew Korostelev 2006-08-18 13:21:03 UTC
this bug existed in previous release.
Related issue 82981 is filed for similar regression.
Comment 2 Andrew Korostelev 2006-10-31 13:16:55 UTC
*** Issue 84289 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 3 George Vasick 2007-05-17 18:45:34 UTC
Planned for drawing area upgrade after NB 6.0.
Comment 4 George Vasick 2007-05-18 00:37:40 UTC
Should not use resolved/later status.
Comment 5 George Vasick 2007-06-28 22:51:40 UTC
Targeted in drawing area redesign.
Comment 6 George Vasick 2007-07-04 00:56:24 UTC
Restoring original priority and using the standard NB waiver process.
Comment 7 George Vasick 2008-01-02 17:48:36 UTC
Diagram area bugs waived for 6.0 will also be waived for 6.1.
Comment 8 Trey Spiva 2008-05-14 21:43:36 UTC
I also think that this is a very low use case.  It should be a p4 at best.  The data is not corrupted.  It is simply user error.
Comment 9 Trey Spiva 2008-05-14 21:44:53 UTC
Sorry I updated the wrong issue.
Comment 10 Joanne Lau 2008-06-18 01:23:40 UTC
Still exists in 6.5