Add initial support for java references in application properties file

[nielsdebruin]

What's changed?

Add initial support for generating java type references from a application.*.properties file, support has only been added for the values, not the keys.

What's your motivation?

Adding this feature allows existing recipes that support references to be applied to .properties files. For more details see:

• Expand Reference to include .properties and .yml #4681

Anything in particular you'd like reviewers to focus on?

The current implementation is still rather limited in its functionality and many design choices are still to be made.

Currently, references of Kind.Type or Kind.Package are generated for either a Java package, e.g., com.openrewrite, or a fully qualified type, such as java.lang.Integer, but not Integer, using a regex derived from the current implementation of SpringReference. This matching is only done for the values in a properties file, not the keys. If this is not the case, nearly every key would likely qualify as a package since they usually contain at least a single ".". Is this as desired?

I have added support for renaming Properties.Entry in the TypeMatcher and PackageMatcher and added a test for ChangeType and ChangePackage recipes. It would perhaps be nice to have a list of all the classes which need to support properties, e.g. AnnotationMatcher?

Anyone you would like to review specifically?

@timtebeek @Laurens-W

Have you considered any alternatives or workarounds?

Any additional context

Checklist

• I've added unit tests to cover both positive and negative cases
• I've read and applied the recipe conventions and best practices
• I've used the IntelliJ IDEA auto-formatter on affected files

[timtebeek]

Great to see! Approved already, but it's still marked as draft?

A quick glance from @knutwannheden would be appreciated, but not a hard requirement. Should we mark this as Incubating still?

[nielsdebruin]

Great to see! Approved already, but it's still marked as draft?

A quick glance from @knutwannheden would be appreciated, but not a hard requirement. Should we mark this as Incubating still?

That might be wise, the code be considered incubating, as most of it implements interfaces that are marked as incubation. I added the incubation annotation.

[Laurens-W]

I still think since the Reference interface is marked as incubating inherently the implementations are also subject to change and therefore might not have to specifically be annotated with incubating

[nielsdebruin]

@Laurens-W I have no preference either way, and it's unclear what the convention is within this project. The SimpleTraitMatcher, extends 'TraitMatcherand implementsTrait. While the latter two are already marked incubating SimpleTraitMatcher` is also marked incubating...