Locate spot to generate `TemplateExtensions.java` better

[datho7561]

When locating the folder to generate TemplateExtension.java into during the "generate missing member" Qute quick fix:

• Filter out classpath entries that are in the output (target) folder
• Filter out classpath entries that represent test code
• Filter out classpath entries that represent resource folders (folders with no Java source files)

Fixes #831

Signed-off-by: David Thompson davthomp@redhat.com

[datho7561]

Okay. It should work now: it should avoid generating into a "generated sources" folder, test folder, and resource folder, with both maven and gradle, and in cases where you change where the source folder is.

(However, Qute template support is buggy in the last case since some features hard code src/main/java)

[angelozerr]

The code looks very good since you don(t hard code src/main/java. Nice!

(However, Qute template support is buggy in the last case since some features hard code src/main/java)

Sorry I don't understand what you mean?

Test alrady exists and you update the order of classpath entries, very good idea.

[datho7561]

Sorry I don't understand what you mean?

One case I ran into when testing is that if I use a gradle project, set the source folder to src/java and set the resources folder to src/resources, then open a template, it doesn't detect that the file is a Qute template until I open a Java file. That might be in vscode-quarkus now that I think about it though.

[datho7561]

The code lens for type safe templates also points to the wrong folder when the resources folder is src/resources.

[angelozerr]

Oh I see, the folder is hard coded at https://github.com/redhat-developer/quarkus-ls/blob/e6114a12e3c4c169c91424c6b75eacabd611a0cf/qute.jdt/com.redhat.qute.jdt/src/main/java/com/redhat/qute/jdt/utils/JDTQuteProjectUtils.java#L42

and https://github.com/redhat-developer/quarkus-ls/blob/820e5a9b71302e9f21ea5bc29e1610b51b4757d7/qute.jdt/com.redhat.qute.jdt/src/main/java/com/redhat/qute/jdt/utils/JDTQuteProjectUtils.java#L89

We need to improve that

[datho7561]

@angelozerr do you think this is okay to merge?

[angelozerr]

@angelozerr do you think this is okay to merge?

Yes but please create issue for codelens and other feature which doesn't work like you have noticed.