Improvements to ObjectScript compile flags

[isc-solon]

I'm 99% sure that the "c" option is redundant and can be removed. The other typical options should be documented a little. I propose this. Assign to me and I'll do it.

    "objectscript.compileFlags": {
      "type": "string",
      "default": "buk",
      "description": "Compilation flags: b - compile dependent classes, u - skip compilation of up-to-date classes, k - keep generated source code."
    },

[daimor]

I'm against having b by default. In some cases, it may be too heavy.

[isc-solon]

OK, so how about the default being "uk" and adding the description?

[daimor]

for now, it's cuk, so, just removing c flag. If it's really redundant and will work on any supported version 2016.2+ without it, it's ok to remove it. And I think, would be better to add a direct link to documentation, instead. Unfortunately, the documentation does not has the direct link, to just compile flags https://docs.intersystems.com/irislatest/csp/docbook/Doc.View.cls?KEY=RCOS_vsystem#RCOS_vsystem_flags_qualifiers

[isc-solon]

There's also this doc for the options in Studio, but I don't think it's right to use Studio doc for VS Code. https://docs.intersystems.com/irislatest/csp/docbook/DocBook.UI.Page.cls?KEY=GSTD_OPTIONS#GSTD_Options_Class If we document these options in the VS Code - ObjectScript doc on GitHub I guess we could link to that. But I re-suggest just adding the 3 common options to the description, since I think that will be the easiest and most helpful.

[isc-solon]

I confirmed with Development that the "c" option is redundant when calling any of the Compile() methods. So it can definitely be removed from the default options. What about the description?

[gjsjohnmurray]

Re the description, it could link to https://docs.intersystems.com/irislatest/csp/docbook/Doc.View.cls?KEY=GOBJ_classes#GOBJ_classes_compile_flagsetc or simply advise the user to run Do $System.OBJ.ShowFlags() in a Terminal on the target server.

[isc-solon]

As I look through the other settings for the extensions, I see longer (but not toooo long) descriptions. For example:

Category of source code to export: CLS = classes; RTN = routines; CSP = csp files; OTH = other. Default is * = all.

<soapbox> So why can't I convince you to change the not-very-informative "Compilation flags" description to my suggestion above? The developer doesn't need to look through all possible flags, they don't need to wonder about the difference between flags and qualifiers if they read this ("flags have been superseded by qualifiers"), they don't need to take the extra steps to start a Terminal and run ShowFlags(), they don't need to read through detailed documentation. Studio and Atelier both provide information about these 3 flags in the place where they get set. Why can't VS Code - ObjectScript do the same? </soapbox>

[isc-bsaviano]

@isc-solon I just submitted a PR to add a link to the documentation for compile flags and qualifiers. I think that's sufficient because any users sophisticated enough to care about the compile flags should be able to understand our documentation on them. I don't see why we should duplicate any of it here

[isc-solon]

OK. I looked again through extension settings (ObjectScript and others), and other than the one I found in my <soapbox> comment above, I see "Read more" links from the settings. I'm going to file a Documentation JIRA to see if they can create something specific for IDE compilation flags to reduce the clutter in the links suggested in earlier comments here.