8365491: VSCode IDE: add basic configuration for the Oracle Java extension

[mhaessig]

This PR adds a basic configuration for the Oracle Java VSCode extension to the vscode-project-* targets.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8365491: VSCode IDE: add basic configuration for the Oracle Java extension (Enhancement - P5)

Reviewers

• Magnus Ihse Bursie (@magicus - Reviewer)
• Jan Lahoda (@lahodaj - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26759/head:pull/26759
$ git checkout pull/26759

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/26759
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/26759/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 26759

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 26759

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26759.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back mhaessig! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@mhaessig This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8365491: VSCode IDE: add basic configuration for the Oracle Java extension

Reviewed-by: ihse, jlahoda

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 29 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• e3aeebe: 8365468: EagerJVMCI should only apply to the CompilerBroker JVMCI runtime
• 6fb6f3d: 8361638: java.lang.classfile.CodeBuilder.CatchBuilder should not throw IllegalArgumentException for representable exception handlers
• 44b19c0: 8365532: java/lang/module/ModuleReader/ModuleReaderTest.testImage fails
• ... and 26 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/25480f0011297ad209eca1b1b56bcf983ea4ee5d...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[openjdk]

@mhaessig The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• build
• ide-support

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 02: Full - Incremental (bfa9d40c)
• 01: Full - Incremental (277a590d)
• 00: Full (6a4d9efb)

[lahodaj]

Looks like a reasonable direction to me. I would suggest to drop:

"jdk.advanced.disable.nbjavac": true,

while it may be good for some, it may lead to surprising effects for others people that don't know about this setting.

Also, including:

		"jdk.java.onSave.organizeImports": false

might make sense.

[mhaessig]

I would suggest to drop: "jdk.advanced.disable.nbjavac": true,

Can you elaborate on the surprising results? When developing the JDK we will most probably use features not supported by the nbjavac.

Also, including:"jdk.java.onSave.organizeImports": false might make sense.

Good point. That will lead to unwanted changes if true.

[magicus]

It's hard to say exactly if these changes are what is needed, but they look sane, and if you have verified that it works then I'm okay with it.

Thanks for improving the IDE support!

[lahodaj]

I would suggest to drop: "jdk.advanced.disable.nbjavac": true,

Can you elaborate on the surprising results? When developing the JDK we will most probably use features not supported by the nbjavac.

In general, it can be anything. From relatively minor problems like not working code completion in some corner case, to a complete failure of the Java editor features.

When nbjavac is disabled, the javac in the JDK on which the extension runs needs to be "close enough" to the version of javac on which nbjavac is based (I believe it is currently ~JDK 24). And depending on the differences between the version against which the extension is built and the real javac in JDK, the there may be unobservable, minor or major negative effects.

If the runtime JDK is too old, there's a warning. But if it is newer, then it is expected the user knows what they are doing. And I am not sure if everyone using this task will know how to interpret potential failures, given they didn't knowingly select the option.

(It is true that JDK 24 and JDK 25 seem to be close enough, so that there are no major effects, and maybe not even minor effects. That may or may not be the case with any upcoming JDK 26 version.)

[mhaessig]

I was not aware that it had to be "close" to nbjavac. Then enabling nbjavac makes much more sense. Thank you for explaining this.

[lahodaj]

Thanks, @mhaessig!

[mhaessig]

Thank you for your reviews!

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit fa2eb61.
Since your change was applied there have been 29 commits pushed to the master branch:

• e3aeebe: 8365468: EagerJVMCI should only apply to the CompilerBroker JVMCI runtime
• 6fb6f3d: 8361638: java.lang.classfile.CodeBuilder.CatchBuilder should not throw IllegalArgumentException for representable exception handlers
• 44b19c0: 8365532: java/lang/module/ModuleReader/ModuleReaderTest.testImage fails
• ... and 26 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/25480f0011297ad209eca1b1b56bcf983ea4ee5d...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@mhaessig Pushed as commit fa2eb61.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.