UI test to check for relevant completion options in bootstrap.properties and server.env

[anusreelakshmi934]

Fixes #852

testCompletionValuesInServerEnv Video

serverEnv.mov

testCompletionValuesInBootstrapProperties Video

Bootstrap.mov

[mrglavas]

@anusreelakshmi934 I noticed testCompletionValuesInServerEnv() and testCompletionValuesInBootstrapProperties() are mostly copies of each other. We're always trying to reduce and avoid code duplication to make the plugin and tests easier to maintain.

@TrevCraw Wondering what your thoughts are on whether this is sufficient coverage since you opened this issue.

[TrevCraw]

Based on this file - https://github.com/OpenLiberty/liberty-language-server/blob/main/liberty-ls/src/main/java/io/openliberty/tools/langserver/utils/ServerPropertyValues.java#L27 - it looks like LCLS returns a List of Strings for the default completion items for each property key. Therefore, I think it is safe to assume each key should behave the same regarding the filtering applied by LSP4IJ to order the completion items. Testing one property key in each file should be sufficient.

[anusreelakshmi934]

Based on this file - https://github.com/OpenLiberty/liberty-language-server/blob/main/liberty-ls/src/main/java/io/openliberty/tools/langserver/utils/ServerPropertyValues.java#L27 - it looks like LCLS returns a List of Strings for the default completion items for each property key. Therefore, I think it is safe to assume each key should behave the same regarding the filtering applied by LSP4IJ to order the completion items. Testing one property key in each file should be sufficient.

So @TrevCraw Is it okay to have two methods since testCompletionValuesInServerEnv() and testCompletionValuesInBootstrapProperties() are mostly copies of each other as pointed out my @mrglavas .

[TrevCraw]

So @TrevCraw Is it okay to have two methods since testCompletionValuesInServerEnv() and testCompletionValuesInBootstrapProperties() are mostly copies of each other as pointed out my @mrglavas .

I would suggest following the recommendation from @mrglavas to avoid code duplication to make these tests easier to maintain.

[dessina-devasia]

Looks good to me

[mrglavas]

Looks good. Thanks for refactoring to reuse code. This will also make it easier to contribute additional completion tests should we want to expand the coverage in the future.