allow skipping projection regions in "Collapse/Expand all" actions - #4272
Open
danthe1st wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
allow skipping projection regions in "Collapse/Expand all" actions#4272danthe1st wants to merge 1 commit into
danthe1st wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
3 tasks
Contributor
danthe1st
force-pushed
the
folding-skip-implicit-types
branch
from
August 23, 2026 11:32
45a60a6 to
8ead023
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds an API to allow for individual projection regions to mark themselves as not being included in the "Expand All"/"Collapse All" editor actions.
This would be used to allow skipping top level types in JDT's Java folding (eclipse-jdt/eclipse.jdt.ui#3126, see also the video in that description for how this is working).
Technically, only the
includeInCollapseAll()method would be needed for this change but I think it is more consistent to have this for both operations.I know that we currently have a code freeze and I'm submitting it with the intention of ideally getting this into the release afterwards (4.42).