Implement formatting in the Code Style layer

[sharwell]

Fixes #30472

[CyrusNajmabadi]

The thing that woul dhelp me out the most is understanding the overall long term plan here (and where we are in the middle of it). For example, is this transitionary, with the entirety of the formatting code going to live in the CodeStyle dll? Or is the expectation that we'll have it living to two locations? Is there guidance around how to properly edit/test things so that we can be sure stuff is working properly in both locations?

[sharwell]

The thing that woul dhelp me out the most is understanding the overall long term plan here (and where we are in the middle of it). For example, is this transitionary, with the entirety of the formatting code going to live in the CodeStyle dll? Or is the expectation that we'll have it living to two locations? Is there guidance around how to properly edit/test things so that we can be sure stuff is working properly in both locations?

I don't have good answers here. We're going to have some ugly compat questions to figure out. In the meantime, I've attempted to share as much code as possible.

[jcouv]

Compiler change (in Hash.cs) LGTM. Thanks

[mavasani]

AnalyzerConfigOptionsExtensions [](start = 26, length = 31)

I presume this will go away after the compiler's AnalyzerConfigOptions type is available? Do we have more such files that are temporary? If so, might want to file a tracking issue that lists all temporary files to be removed.

[mavasani]

SyntaxKindEx [](start = 32, length = 12)

Will formatting support for all new language features need to go through this approach now? It might be good to extract out this code into a separate helper/extension so all these are in one place.

[mavasani]

internal class EditorConfigOptionsApplier

Ah, I was hoping this type went away, but I guess you can't get rid of this until you move to compiler's AnalyzerConfigOptions?

---

Refers to: src/Tools/dotnet-format/EditorConfigOptionsApplier.cs:13 in c74f16a. [](commit_id = c74f16a, deletion_comment = False)

[mavasani]

Awesome! Eager to see your next refactoring when you move to AnalyzerConfigOptions and clean this up further.

[CyrusNajmabadi]

Yup! This is great. And i'm very sympathetic to the difficulties faced here moving/sharing things here. One thing that woudl be helpful to me might be a high level list of steps you think we need to take for the short/medium/long terms to get to where we'd want. Primarily this would help in terms of shutting me up in PRs with my voicing of some concerns. Basically, since i don't know what's coming up in the future, i'm often more critical of things i see since i assume tehy'll be the final state of the code. If i know it's a stepping stone to break things up, and later changes will clean things up, i know i can hold off on that feedback since it's been covered as part of the transition plan.