Updated target frameworks

[glen-84]

Summary of the changes (Less than 80 chars)

• Updated target frameworks.

---

Notes:

• I've removed the non-generic version of OrderedDictionary to align with .NET 9.
• I needed to install Basic.Reference.Assemblies.Net90, which requires Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Common (>= 4.9.2), so I've updated Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp and Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces to version 4.9.2, and Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers to version 3.3.4.
  • New analyzer warnings:
    • RS1031 - Fixed.
    • RS2008 - Added to NoWarn for now – do you want to enable analyzer release tracking?
  • Related, I think, there were also quite a few formatting changes to the generated code for Strawberry Shake.
• I've removed most of the .vscode directories, since they are inconsistently added, reference various different old frameworks, etc.

Questions:

• There is one warning related to AOT in HotChocolate.Utilities, could you please assist?
  • HotChocolate/Utilities/src/Utilities/DependencyInjection/ServiceFactory.cs, L45.
  • Applying a simple fix causes another warning.
• Since the Azure in-process model is being deprecated, should we:
  1. Update the in-process template to .NET 8 anyway. OR
  2. Remove the in-process template.
     • Rename HotChocolate.Template.AzureFunctions.Isolated to HotChocolate.Template.AzureFunctions?
     • function -> azure-function?
• There are a bunch of warnings (local only) since NuGet auditing is now applied to transitive dependencies.
  • The ideal solution is likely [Feature] Allow developers to opt-in for SemVer-compatible dependency resolution NuGet/Home#13779, but that could take years.
  • CentralPackageTransitivePinningEnabled is not good because of this.
  • Moving transitive dependencies to direct dependencies is very messy.
  • We can either live with the local warnings for now, or set auditing to apply to direct dependencies only?
    • I'm leaning towards the latter option.
• Can I remove the Spatial.Demo project? It's outdated, and after applying some fixes it still seems broken. We could probably fix it, but I think it's the only demo project in the solution, so it seems out of place.
• What is the status of templates/StarWars?
  • It doesn’t seem to be “modernized”.
  • Do you want to keep it?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 88.88889% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.85%. Comparing base (92c99df) to head (b7c5e80).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...rc/Abstractions/Execution/OperationResultHelper.cs	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...rization.Opa/Request/DefaultQueryRequestFactory.cs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7471      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.83%   77.85%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        2825     2824       -1     
  Lines      141872   141748     -124     
==========================================
- Hits       110432   110351      -81     
+ Misses      31440    31397      -43     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	77.85% <88.88%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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