Tasks 2.0 integration with launch.json

[ytimenkov]

I want to specify auto detected task as a prelaunch task (npm run compile in my case).
Right task name is just "preLaunchTask": "run compile", which I found only by looking into VS Code sources.

There are 2 problems with this:

1. there is no way for user to guess "task name" from UI

Task picker looks:

I tried "npm: run compile", "npm", "npm run compile" - nothing worked.

Even when I try to customize task I get tasks.json:

{
    "version": "2.0.0",
    "tasks": [
        {
            "customize": "vscode.npm.run compile",
            "taskName": "npm: run compile",
            "problemMatcher": []
        }
    ]
}

Which gives no clue about task name being just "run compile".

2. Possible name clashes

If no extension name is involved in lookup process, what if task is simply called "build"?

• Related to Provide Task Runner viewlet #28235
• VSCode Version: Code 1.13.1 (379d2ef, 2017-06-14T18:21:47.485Z)

[dbaeumer]

We discussed that yesterday and we will support specifying the label in the launch.json.

[dbaeumer]

@isidorn this required some minor changes in the DebugService. Instead of getting all tasks I added a method to the task service to receive a task using the string in the preLaunchTask property. This allows the task framework to to care of how a task is found. Please have a look at the commit attached to this issue.

@ytimenkov you can now do the following:

• either use the task's name as shown in the UI. In your example 'npm: run compile' or you can assign an identifier in the tasks.json and use that.

{
	"version": "2.0.0",
	"tasks": [
		{
			"type": "npm",
			"script": "compile",
			"identifier": "npm>run>compile",
			"problemMatcher": [
				"$tsc"
			]
		}
	]
}

defines the identifier npm>run>compile. The launch.json then looks like this:

		{
			"type": "node",
			"request": "launch",
			"name": "Launch Program",
			"program": "${workspaceRoot}/helloWorld.js",
			"preLaunchTask": "npm>run>compile",
			"outFiles": []
		}

[isidorn]

@dbaeumer I checked these changes and it looks good to me. Should we create a Test Plan item for this?