Modernize codebase to use latest language features

[Tyrrrz]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 59 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (ad12c77) 64.09% compared to head (4788590) 63.76%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/Passwordless/Models/Credential.cs	0.00%	17 Missing ⚠️
src/Passwordless/Models/VerifiedUser.cs	28.57%	10 Missing ⚠️
src/Passwordless/Models/SetAliasRequest.cs	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
src/Passwordless/Models/PasswordlessUserSummary.cs	0.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
src/Passwordless/PasswordlessClient.cs	79.16%	4 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...re/Services/Implementations/PasswordlessService.cs	90.90%	3 Missing ⚠️
src/Passwordless/Helpers/Base64UrlConverter.cs	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
src/Passwordless/PasswordlessHttpHandler.cs	50.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
src/Passwordless/Models/AliasPointer.cs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/Passwordless/Models/CredentialDescriptor.cs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
... and 2 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #107      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   64.09%   63.76%   -0.34%     
==========================================
  Files          39       43       +4     
  Lines         855      723     -132     
  Branches       63       58       -5     
==========================================
- Hits          548      461      -87     
+ Misses        297      253      -44     
+ Partials       10        9       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[jonashendrickx]

Primary constructors are kind of awful, and you still cannot make injections readonly. If it's 'private' I would kind of expect it to start with '_' too.

It will make the code base just harder to navigate if it doesn't follow the naming conventions of private fields.

Maybe we can suppress 'IDE0290' until it's more mature?

[Tyrrrz]

Primary constructors are kind of awful, and you still cannot make injections readonly. If it's 'private' I would kind of expect it to start with '_' too.

It will make the code base just harder to navigate if it doesn't follow the naming conventions of private fields.

Maybe we can suppress 'IDE0290' until it's more mature?

I agree that the mismatch in naming is confusing, but I still think that the reduction in noise due to removed boilerplate code is well worth it. The way I like to model it conceptually is as if the class instance is a closure generated from inside the constructor, in which case being able to reference constructor parameters makes more sense.