Re: Generic way how to disable error checking in NB

On 18 Jan 2008, at 12:54, Marek Fukala wrote:

> That is problematic IMHO - under most of the cases the source is  
> complete and all found errors are real errors. Making warning from  
> them just because we are not 100% sure if they really are is IMHO  
> not a good idea.

Yes, but this issue is about showing errors if there's no real  
errors, right? As in the example described in issuezilla. In plain  
html the IDE should show errors as they are real errors. In jsp or  
php the IDE should only show errors in those parts of the code where  
it's an error for sure.

> Having a significant part of the file underlined is probably  
> something people will not like.

It all depends on real cases. If a big portion of a file is wrongly  
underlined, then it can be an issue. How common is that? Can we  
improve the error checking so that we eliminate false alarms?

> In most of the pages the errors are relevant, and since the pages  
> which are just fragments are not possible to identify AFAIK so the  
> ide itself cannot determine whether show errors or just warnings,  
> some user input is needed.

I think we need to analyze what are the different cases when the IDE  
shows false errors and how common is that.

> Do you think the possibility to enable/disable the checks per file  
> is a wrong idea from the user perspective?

In general we should not ask the user to enable/disable features  
because they may not work reliably. That's a usability issue. It also  
brings complications as the IDE needs to indicate the disabled state  
visually and remember it between IDE sessions.

Thanks,
Jano