[TrimmableTypeMap][Core B] Foundation and AssemblyIndex

[simonrozsival]

Sliced from #10805
Depends on #10816

Scope

• Foundation pieces required by scanner (project, model/providers)
• AssemblyIndex metadata indexing and lookup logic

Notes

• This keeps scanner indexing concerns isolated from scanner execution flow.

[simonrozsival]

Suggested change

	// [Export] methods are detected per-method in CollectMarshalMethods
	// [Export] methods are not handled yet and supporting them wil be implemented later

[simonrozsival]

Suggested change

	return parentName + "+" + name;
	return $"{parentName}+{name}";

[simonrozsival]

Suggested change

	return ns + "." + name;
	return $"{ns}.{name}";

[simonrozsival]

I don't really know if this information would be useful later, but it would be useful in tests I think: let's remember the exact type of the attribute please. I think it might be best to make this class abstract and add a sealed subclass for each of the component classes. The ApplicationBackupAgent and ApplicationManageSpaceActivity fields should be just on the ApplicationAttributeInfo class (without the redundant Application prefix).

[simonrozsival]

Does typeDef.GetInterfaceImplementations () return only the interfaces implemented on this type level, or also the inherited interfaces? I would expect this API not to recursively explore the interfaces implemented on the base class and the base interfaces of the implemented interfaces. I think we should either not do this yet (we would only support the predefined set of attributes such as [Register], [Application], [Activity], ..., or do it properly and recursively explore the structure. This could be very expensive, so we'd need to carefuly cache if a given type (class or interface) implements IJniNameProviderAttribute. The more I'm thinking about it, the more I think we should not even look for this interface. We can add this logic once we run into a scenario that actually requires it.

[simonrozsival]

Suggested change

	if (attrInfo != null) {
	if (attrInfo is not null) {

[simonrozsival]

Addressed all review feedback in this and downstream stacked PRs: applied null patterns (is null/is not null), string interpolation, and split TypeAttributeInfo into typed hierarchy (ActivityAttributeInfo, ServiceAttributeInfo, ApplicationAttributeInfo, etc). All comments can be marked resolved as the code has been updated accordingly.

[simonrozsival]

Closing: merged into unified PR #10823. The Core A/B/C split was too granular — a single scanner-core PR is more practical for review while still being much smaller than the original #10805.