Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New Feature: outline extension BuildItems #1094

Open
gastaldi opened this issue Aug 9, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

New Feature: outline extension BuildItems #1094

gastaldi opened this issue Aug 9, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request quarkus Quarkus support

Comments

@gastaldi
Copy link
Contributor

gastaldi commented Aug 9, 2023

When writing a Quarkus extension, it would be nice if the developer had a list of the existing BuildItems they can use.

For example, if I want to deploy a ServletContainerInitializer, I'd use a ServletContainerInitializerBuildItem. Finding the exact build item is a hard task and it would be nice to have a search mechanism to find this information

We have a page generated at https://quarkus.io/guides/all-builditems however it's a bit annoying to find what you need there. It would be nice if we had a list of potential builditems in an IDE tool window (bonus points if including those that are not available in the project)

@angelozerr
Copy link

I think we can use LSP workpsace symbols (we need to implement the LSP support workspace symbol for IJ)

For instance our MicroProfile LS support LSP workspace symbols to retrieve Rest services. vscode use this workspace symbols like this https://github.com/redhat-developer/vscode-microprofile/blob/master/docs/JavaFeatures.md#workspace-symbols-support.

We plan to support workspace symbols in IJ redhat-developer/lsp4ij#22

My idea is to add a new Tab like Workspace Symbols in the popup window used to retrieve a class

image

Is it make senses?

@gastaldi
Copy link
Contributor Author

gastaldi commented Aug 9, 2023

Ah, that makes sense, yes.

Another feature is that the @BuildSteps in an extension processor are considered unused methods in IJ, which is not true, but I am not sure if this should be in a separate issue

@angelozerr
Copy link

Ah, that makes sense, yes.

Great!

Another feature is that the @buildsteps in an extension processor are considered unused methods in IJ, which is not true, but I am not sure if this should be in a separate issue

Yes please create an issue for that. @fbricon did that for rest services.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request quarkus Quarkus support
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants