'Replace All in All Open Documents' problem in 7.4.1

donho

Thank you @Claudia-Frank , I have the same result.

@Steven-Speirs Could you give me a screenshot to show me how you disable Document Peeker ?

Steven Speirs

Here’s a screenshot: https://app.box.com/s/osnrj1i9ix2cqi530fobdboeuzns2up7

donho

@Steven-Speirs Yes, I have experienced the same problem.
You have to restart Notepad++ after disable Document Peeker.
Please restart Notepad++ and check this settings to ensure it’s not active then test.
Pleas let me know the result of your test.

Steven Speirs

Hi.

I’ve tried again this morning and disabling Document Peeker does seem to fix the problem.
I have no idea what I was doing last night when I thought the problem still existed (maybe searching for text that was not in all files). Sorry for the false alarm.

To reiterate: the problem does not exist when Document Peeker has been disabled.

Cheers,
Steve

donho

@Steven-Speirs Thank you for your confirmation !

guy038

Hi, @donho, @steven-Speirs and All,

Quite strange, indeed ! Finally, I’m, exactly, in the same situation than Steven and I could have writen a similar post to the Steven’s one :-)) But, certainly, in less fluent American-English !

So, presently, the features Replace All in All documents and Replace in Files properly work, when Document Peeker new feature is disabled, in N++ v7.4.1 :-))

Many thanks, @donho, for your feedback, about that matter !

Cheers,

guy038

Gary Collier

issue continues in v7.7.1 both 64 and 32 bit versions
I notice when my file contains hex code 85 the all document replace function works on focus document only. When I try with another group of files that do not contain hex code 85 the replace all documents is successful for all. Perhaps this observation might help to reduce the randomness of the underlying issue.

Alan Kilborn

@Gary-Collier

That’s really too vague for anyone to care about pursuing. Why don’t you do something like this:

fileset, all in one folder:
file1.txt - active document when replacement is started - contains hex 85 - what happens to it after replacement operation
file2.txt - doesn’t contain hex 85 - what happens to it after replacement operation
file3.txt - etc
etc.

Nobody really likes typing to describe a problem. BUT…You’ve got to give something to get something.

Prediction: No reply.

guy038

Hello, @gary-collier,

First of all, Gary, when you speak of the "hex 85" character, do you mean :

The Unicode character , of code-point U+0085, which belongs to the Control-C1 range, of short name NEL ( NExt Line ), and which can be found with any of the regexes, below :
- \x85
- \x{85}
- \x{0085}

when the current encoding of your file is, either, UTF-8, UTF-8-BOM, UCS-2 BE BOM or UCS-2 LE BOM, exclusively

( Refer to http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf )

OR

The Unicode character …, of code-point U+2026, which belongs to the General Punctuation script, of name Horisontal Ellipsis, and which can be found with :
the regex \x{2026}

when the current encoding of your file is, either, UTF-8, UTF-8-BOM, UCS-2 BE BOM or UCS-2 LE BOM

the regex \x85

when the current encoding of your file is ANSI

( Refer to http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2000.pdf )

Personally, I tried with a local N++ v7.7.1 installation, in folder D:@@\771, containing 3 UTF-8 text files Guy_1.txt, Guy_2.txt and Guy_3.txt

Then, I considered 4 cases, in the Guy_2 file :

Only letters
Letters + the U+0085 character
Letters + the U+2026 character
Letters + the U+0085 and U+2026 characters

And I replaced just one occurence of a word, per file, with an other one. But luckily, in all cases, I did obtain 3 replacements ;-)), with Filters field = Guy*.txt and Directory field = D:\@@\771

Best Regards,

guy038

Hugo Alves

I am using version 7.8.6 and got the same problem on my first attempt.
But it works properly when i run NP++ as Administrator

Alan Kilborn

@Hugo-Alves

You might want to be a bit more specific about what the “same problem” is, after all, this thread is a bit old and several things were discussed above.

Also, while 7.8.6 isn’t “ancient” by any means, maybe try something more recent?