Use Java modern features/APIs

[marcospereira]

What?

This runs OpenRewrite Java 17 migration recipe to adopt new/modern Java language features and APIs.

A few of the more extensive changes involve:

• Text blocks: https://openjdk.org/jeps/378
• Pattern matching: https://openjdk.org/jeps/394

How?

I've added the plugin described in OpenRewrite docs but executed it only for projects that include jte-parent as a parent.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.30435% with 4 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 91.31%. Comparing base (9320ca7) to head (a367477).

Files	Patch %	Lines
...ain/java/gg/jte/models/runtime/StaticJteModel.java	0.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...rc/main/java/gg/jte/compiler/TemplateCompiler.java	83.33%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...extensionsupport/ExtensionTemplateDescription.java	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #357      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     91.38%   91.31%   -0.08%     
+ Complexity     1219     1217       -2     
============================================
  Files            76       76              
  Lines          3168     3165       -3     
  Branches        493      490       -3     
============================================
- Hits           2895     2890       -5     
- Misses          163      164       +1     
- Partials        110      111       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[casid]

@marcospereira this looks good to me, except that I would like to revert the record commit.

It doesn't bring much benefit compared to the dumb data classes that are already there (except adding getters that are not really needed).

Especially stuff like public record DirectoryCodeResolver is really bad. This is not a data class, but public API. The change also breaks the public API for every user who is using getRoot() on that class for no reason.

[marcospereira]

It doesn't bring much benefit compared to the dumb data classes that are already there (except adding getters that are not really needed).

Yeah, I was also in doubt about it, mainly because of the compatibility issue, and that is why the PR was a draft.

It is now gone. :-)

[casid]

Awesome! Thank you for the clean-up :-)