plugins: add workbench.action.openSettings

[vince-fugnitto]

What it does

Fixes #7317

The following commit adds the workbench.action.openSettings command so that it can be executed successfully by VS Code extensions.

How to test

1. include the following test vscode extension
2. execute the command Ext: Open Settings
3. the preferences widget should be correctly opened (this was not the case on master)

Review checklist

• as an author, I have thoroughly tested my changes and carefully followed the review guidelines

Reminder for reviewers

• as a reviewer, I agree to behave in accordance with the review guidelines

Signed-off-by: vince-fugnitto vincent.fugnitto@ericsson.com

[Anasshahidd21]

LGTM, I tried testing it on master, it didn't open the preferences and just fallback to the current editor.
With the PR, it successfully opens the preferences.

[akosyakov]

It supposed to accept some optional query: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/blob/418d1974ca0f99529e4f55c8d05f0a202404c980/src/vs/workbench/contrib/preferences/browser/preferences.contribution.ts#L235-L239

Not sure how it is important right now, cc @ishche ?

[ishche]

Not sure how it is important right now, cc @ishche ?

For us, it's nice to have. But we can do a workaround for that.

[akosyakov]

@vince-fugnitto Could you have a look what query supposed to do and whether we can do it. I assume it is something like to select a tree node with our tree APIs it should not be hard.

[vince-fugnitto]

@vince-fugnitto Could you have a look what query supposed to do and whether we can do it. I assume it is something like to select a tree node with our tree APIs it should not be hard.

It looks like it is used to add a query search term to the widget (ex: passing 'vince'):

Since we do not have such a concept at the moment, I assume it is fine to omit the query for the moment?

[akosyakov]

Since we do not have such a concept at the moment, I assume it is fine to omit the query for the moment?

Sounds good, please file a follow-up issue.

[akosyakov]

LGTM

[vince-fugnitto]

Since we do not have such a concept at the moment, I assume it is fine to omit the query for the moment?

Sounds good, please file a follow-up issue.

#7328