fix: #9 Fix warnings

[miquelbeltran]

fix: #9 Fix warnings

Description 📝

• Purpose: Fixes several warnings in the project
• Approach: Enable some checks and perform the suggested fixes by the IDE in most cases.

Type of change

• Fix

Updates

• Enables "nullable" in projects (this leads to 100+ warnings appearing)
• Applied suggestions regarding nullability.
• Apply suggestions in other warnings (documentation, naming, etc.)

Screenshots 📷

• None

Test plan 🧪

• Project builds.
• dotnet test passes.

Author to check 👓

• Project and all contained modules builds successfully
• Self-/dev-tested
• Unit/UI/Automation/Integration tests provided where applicable
• Code is written to standards
• Appropriate documentation written (code comments, internal docs)

Reviewer to check ✔️

• Project and all contained modules builds successfully
• Change has been dev-/reviewer-tested, where possible
• Unit/UI/Automation/Integration tests provided where applicable
• Code is written to standards
• Appropriate documentation written (code comments, internal docs)

[QuantumNightmare]

Thanks for working towards this tidy up. One thing that stands out however is the change of acronyms to PascalCasing. e.g. OS -> Os and IL to Il etc.
I've previously heard that PascalCasing for these is the Microsoft recommendation, however we've stuck with all caps for acronyms throughout our .NET code and so would like to stick with that for consistency please. I also personally like the readability of all caps better in most cases.
You may want to add in a dotsettings rule to avoid them showing up as warnings.

[miquelbeltran]

Hi @QuantumNightmare I have applied your suggestions and restored the acronyms name formatting.

[QuantumNightmare]

Hi @QuantumNightmare I have applied your suggestions and restored the acronyms name formatting.

Thanks, looks good 👍

[QuantumNightmare]

Looks good, just added some minor feedback

[QuantumNightmare]

I imagine we'll just want to delete this class

[miquelbeltran]

I thought the same, the Raygun.Blazor.Server question is addressed here: #22

[QuantumNightmare]

Should delete this unless we intend to wire it up

[robertmclaws]

At one point I had intended to wire those up from the UserAgentHints, but then I discovered that the versioning at that level is a dictionary of multiple sets of values, including an extra key designed to throw off people doing things like this.

So I believe I decided to return the whole array (minus the BS extra key) instead, which means those can be deleted.

[QuantumNightmare]

Outside the scope of this PR, but in case it gets missed later, the JsonPropertyName meaning something different to the property name may be unintentional here.

[robertmclaws]

This was intentional. I was looking for API consistency between what the browser returned, to help end users get a clear understanding of what the data point actually was. The JsonPropertyName just mapped that clarity I was trying to provide at the code level to the value the Raygun API was expecting in the payload.