Visit classes when passed as argument to methods.

[manolo]

Fixes Dynamic Routes #5509
Fixes components instantiated in FactoryBeans #5658

---

This change is 

[mehdi-vaadin]

Please check #5658 to see if it's resolved or not.

[ujoni]

Does this change catch a situation where the user has, for some reason, a service class. Something like:

public class SomeView extends HorizontalLayoyt {
    public SomeView() {
        String userId = getUserId();
        UserRouteService.registerUserRoute(RouteConfiguration.forSessionScope(), userId);
    }
}

public class UserRouteService {
    public static void registerUserRoute(RouteConfiguration config, String userId) {
        config.setRoute(userId, UserView.class, null);
        // some logic
    }
}

The example is a bit forced, but regardless: would something like that be caught?

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2.
Reviewable status: all discussions resolved, 0 of 1 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @mehdi-vaadin and @ujoni)

[manolo]

When SomeView.class is visited because it's in a route, UserView.class should be visited as well.
Added a test that demonstrates it

Reviewable status: all discussions resolved, 0 of 1 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @mehdi-vaadin)

[mehdi-vaadin]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2.
Reviewable status: 3 unresolved discussions, 0 of 1 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @manolo and @mehdi-vaadin)

---

flow-server/src/test/java/com/vaadin/flow/server/frontend/scanner/ScannerDependenciesTest.java, line 130 at r2 (raw file):

should_visit_Constructor

Method names don't follow the naming convention. It should follow subjectOfTheTest_input_expectedOutput. E.g. for this case, the name of the method should be like grtFrontendDependencies_viewWithComponentsInCtor_depsShouldBeAdded.

---

flow-server/src/test/java/com/vaadin/flow/server/frontend/scanner/ScannerTestComponents.java, line 114 at r2 (raw file):

        public RouterLayout1() {
        }

What's the purpose of this?

---

flow-server/src/test/java/com/vaadin/flow/server/frontend/scanner/ScannerTestComponents.java, line 125 at r2 (raw file):

        public RouterLayout2(String a) {
        }

What's the purpose of this?

[manolo]

Reviewable status: 3 unresolved discussions, 0 of 1 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @manolo and @mehdi-vaadin)

---

flow-server/src/test/java/com/vaadin/flow/server/frontend/scanner/ScannerDependenciesTest.java, line 130 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, mehdi-vaadin (Mehdi Javan) wrote…

should_visit_Constructor

Method names don't follow the naming convention. It should follow subjectOfTheTest_input_expectedOutput. E.g. for this case, the name of the method should be like grtFrontendDependencies_viewWithComponentsInCtor_depsShouldBeAdded.

There are many conventions for test names. I follow the ‘should’ one, the same used in may Vaadin products like Connect, Components, etc

---

flow-server/src/test/java/com/vaadin/flow/server/frontend/scanner/ScannerTestComponents.java, line 114 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, mehdi-vaadin (Mehdi Javan) wrote…

        public RouterLayout1() {
        }

What's the purpose of this?

Proly constructor was used for some case in the past and left empty after that. Removed but unrelated with this PR

---

flow-server/src/test/java/com/vaadin/flow/server/frontend/scanner/ScannerTestComponents.java, line 125 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, mehdi-vaadin (Mehdi Javan) wrote…

        public RouterLayout2(String a) {
        }

What's the purpose of this?

Done.

[ujoni]

Reviewed 2 of 3 files at r1, 1 of 2 files at r3.
Reviewable status: 3 unresolved discussions, 1 of 1 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @mehdi-vaadin and @ujoni)

---

flow-server/src/test/java/com/vaadin/flow/server/frontend/scanner/ScannerDependenciesTest.java, line 130 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, manolo (Manuel Carrasco Moñino) wrote…

There are many conventions for test names. I follow the ‘should’ one, the same used in may Vaadin products like Connect, Components, etc

The other tests seems to use should_somethingInCamelCase. Otherwise I am fine with this.

[mehdi-vaadin]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r3.
Reviewable status: complete! all discussions resolved, 2 of 1 LGTMs obtained