feat: update InterfaceStubGenerator to be an incremental generator

[TimothyMakkison]

Closes #1791

• Parser converts each INamedTypeSymbol into InterfaceModel and extracts additional information.
• All Model types should be structurally equatable to enable incremental generation.
  • ImmutableEquatableArray is a structurally equatable collection.
• Emitter takes each model and creates an interface stub.
• I’ve tried to keep the logic and structure as close to the original as I could to prevent errors.

TODO

• Add more tests
• Delete unused code
• Need to do a thorough comparison between the old logic and new to ensure that I haven't made a translation error.

Future changes

• Remove some of the unneeded ToList calls
• Optimize the model memory usage. ie ImmutableEquatableArray could be made into a struct.
• I'd like to copy System.Text.Json and rename files to InterfaceStubGenerator.Parser etc

Benchmarks

Original

Method	Mean	Error	StdDev	Gen0	Gen1	Allocated
Compile	249.6 us	4.97 us	6.46 us	12.6953	2.9297	117.52 KB
Cached	216.1 us	4.10 us	4.02 us	12.2070	2.9297	114.86 KB
CompileMany	8,898.8 us	171.75 us	197.78 us	687.5000	343.7500	6354.62 KB
CachedMany	7,897.2 us	139.81 us	137.32 us	671.8750	328.1250	6289.45 KB

Incremental

Method	Mean	Error	StdDev	Gen0	Gen1	Gen2	Allocated
Compile	215.4 us	3.76 us	3.69 us	12.2070	1.4648	-	115.5 KB
Cached	158.1 us	2.97 us	2.91 us	5.8594	0.2441	-	54.44 KB
CompileMany	8,142.1 us	138.00 us	129.08 us	765.6250	296.8750	31.2500	6793.62 KB
CachedMany	5,173.9 us	97.88 us	100.52 us	156.2500	54.6875	-	1455.1 KB

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.80%. Comparing base (6ebeda5) to head (59910d7).
Report is 135 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1864      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.73%   83.80%   -3.93%     
==========================================
  Files          33       36       +3     
  Lines        2348     2476     +128     
  Branches      294      347      +53     
==========================================
+ Hits         2060     2075      +15     
- Misses        208      318     +110     
- Partials       80       83       +3     

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

[ChrisPulman]

Hi @TimothyMakkison , do you think you could try to update dependency verify.sourcegenerators to 2.5.0 along with this PR or as a separate PR.
I think I managed to conflict with one of your updates with some of my PR's, hence the conflict, sorry.
So far this is looking good, thank you, I have updated the Minor, however this looks like a Major version change; I think we can wait until this section of work is complete before releasing again, please let me know when you think the code is ready to release should be a nice update by the looks of things. If you think it can stay with a minor update then do let me know.

[TimothyMakkison]

Hi @TimothyMakkison , do you think you could try to update dependency verify.sourcegenerators to 2.5.0 along with this PR or as a separate PR.

Sure, I don't think changing this should affect me.

I think I managed to conflict with one of your updates with some of my PR's, hence the conflict, sorry.

nw, it looks like most of the changes can be copied over or ignored, shouldn't be a problem.

So far this is looking good, thank you, I have updated the Minor, however this looks like a Major version change; I think we can wait until this section of work is complete before releasing again, please let me know when you think the code is ready to release should be a nice update by the looks of things. If you think it can stay with a minor update then do let me know.

Thanks 😄, in theory this should be a fully backwards compatible change and will only provide a smoother ide experience for users. Assuming that I haven't broken anything🤞. I'm not too familiar with versioning so I'm happy to leave the decision to you. Does refit have a pre release version?

I was hoping to finish this in a couple of days, I need to do some cleanup, re-read Parser/Emitter a couple of times and probably write more tests. I'll mark this as ready for review when ready.

[TimothyMakkison]

Should be sound 🤞 . I tried to keep the logic the same and do a straight translation from the original, however there are differences. Note that bools passed to ParseMethod may appear to be inverted as the its logic is a mix of ProcessRefitMethod and WriteMethodOpening.

I'll probably look into #1801 or #1389 next. I could probably do #1801 over the weekend if you want it in the next update.
#1389 will take a lot longer, should I create a separate issue for it?

[ChrisPulman]

Shall we get 1801 out the way first as it's producing errors in the code, then tackle 1389

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.