"Semanticdb is required for code" when semanticdb is enabled

[matthughes]

Describe the bug

JVM: OpenJDK 21.0.10
Bloop: 2.0.18
Metals: 1.6.5
SBT: 1.12.0
Scala: 3.7.4

My project now reports the following in Metals Doctor:

"Semanticdb is required for code navigation to work correctly in your project, however the Java semanticdb plugin doesn't seem to be enabled. Please enable the Java semanticdb plugin for this project in order for code navigation to work correctly"

Yet if you look in SBT or even the bloop files you see semanticdb is enabled:

                "-Xsemanticdb",
                "-semanticdb-target",
                "/Users/MHughe008/work/vise/onyx-clean/common/jvm/target/scala-3.7.4/meta"

onyx-root(main)> show commonJVM/semanticdbEnabled
[info] true
onyx-root(main)> show commonJVM/semanticdbVersion
[info] 4.14.2
onyx-root(main)> show commonJVM/semanticdbOptions
[info] * -Xsemanticdb

I recently did a brew update which pulled in idk 21.0.10 (from 21.0.9) and thought that might have something to do with it but I downgraded and the problem persists. This might just be a false positive as the code seems to compile and link fine.

Expected behavior

No response

Operating system

macOS

Editor/Extension

VS Code

Version of Metals

v1.6.5

Scala version/s

3.7.4

Extra context or search terms

No response

[tgodzik]

Yeah, I think it's a false positive, we should remove that, since it's not adding much,

[matthughes]

So it seems like this problem was triggered by enabling best effort compilation. I misspoke earlier when I said things were compiling. There were you problems reported but that's cause something was crashing the compiler. When I turned off best effort compilation and re-imported, that error went away and my project finally started compiling in bloop.

As a side note, it would be great if compiler crashes would be reported in Problems. It's kind of hard to tell that this has happened and users mistakenly think everything is ok but code completion, etc isn't working.

[tgodzik]

I was working on that in #7891, but wasn't sure if it's not too much