Add Support for Threadsafe and NotThreadSafe annotations

[jrosen081]

Closes #129

This adds support for threadsafe, immutable, and notthreadsafe annotations. I was able to test this locally making jars, which I can attach if needed, but couldn't do any automated testing due to the fact that these types are not built in to Java, so I couldn't use the normal translator tests. I'm open to hearing if there are any good ways of doing automated testing for this (we could possibly build a jar in CI with the given dependencies and use that, but it's probably not great to be doing that during unit tests, especially since I think we will need to download dependencies if we want to use the real annotations in the ticket)

[ktoso]

In a Java test modules you could literarily define an annotation with those names - it doesn't have to be the "real jar". Do you want to give that a short or should I try to streamline it a bit more? Idk the exact steps without looking into it, let me know if you'd need a hand here.

Alternatively you could do this on one of the sample apps -- we CI verify them all, so declare the annotation there and see that some type indeed got the Sendable conformance by assigning it to some var: x: Sendable etc?

[jrosen081]

In a Java test modules you could literarily define an annotation with those names - it doesn't have to be the "real jar". Do you want to give that a short or should I try to streamline it a bit more? Idk the exact steps without looking into it, let me know if you'd need a hand here.

I'll look into it later this week and let you know if I can figure out the automated test way.

Alternatively you could do this on one of the sample apps -- we CI verify them all, so declare the annotation there and see that some type indeed got the Sendable conformance by assigning it to some var: x: Sendable etc?

Oh didn't know that this was done in CI. If I can't get the first part right, I can do this part

[ktoso]

We actually rely on the samples a lot for correctness so yeah, that'd definitely be a viable way to verify things as well :)

[ktoso]

missing license header?

[jrosen081]

oops updated

[ktoso]

Looks good, thanks for including the snippet

[jrosen081]

We actually rely on the samples a lot for correctness so yeah, that'd definitely be a viable way to verify things as well :)

I updated one of the Samples to check for ThreadSafe. This still has the hole where there isn't a way to test something is not Sendable (which NotThreadSafe does). I can look later in the week for other testing of not sendable depending on what you think

[ktoso]

That's okey, thanks :)