TacticDDD dsl formatting improvements

[astmuc]

See issue #365

• Traits and BasicTypes are included in formatting rules
• Comments trigger a new-line
• references and traits receive an leading "@" even if created by API

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 91.8%. Comparing base (981d5be) to head (9e3dc1b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...per/dsl/ContextMapperCrossReferenceSerializer.java	80.0%	0 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             master    #366     +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage      91.8%   91.8%   -0.1%     
- Complexity     2231    2237      +6     
==========================================
  Files           211     212      +1     
  Lines          5941    5956     +15     
  Branches        806     811      +5     
==========================================
+ Hits           5459    5470     +11     
  Misses          230     230             
- Partials        252     256      +4     

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

[astmuc]

I need some help here to understand which part of the two if conditions are not covered. Is it the null check, which is probably not needed ?

[stefan-ka]

Hi @astmuc

Thank you very much for your PR! I'll need some time to review, sorry. Could take a few days.
Let's ignore the coverage for now; in such if-statements its very hard to cover every single case and I don't think it makes sense to cover every case here just for the sake of the coverage. I could bypass that in the end ;)

But could you maybe check the diff again regarding code formatting? There seem to be many places where the indentation is not consistent.

Best regards,
Stefan

[astmuc]

I did not format the tactics language file, as there is a formatting active, which i did not found in eclipse standard installation.
I did not squash the commit, as i would have to force push then. I do not know, if the pull-request mechanism would like this.

[stefan-ka]

Hi @astmuc

I am very sorry for my bad response times! Did you close the PR for this or any other reason?

Best regards,
Stefan

[astmuc]

I closed it, because i had to move forward with other changes. And it was to complicated for me to keep the new changes in separate branches. I merged this PR in the fork and moved forward. So i am no longer dependent on the merge.
Best regards,
Andreas