Make System.Reflection.Emit public types abstract

[buyaa-n]

We plan to abstract out Reflection.Emit APIs for adding AssemblyBuilder.Save() in .NET Core. So that we can have two implementations, one that having old code to support all downlevel runtime, and a new implementation that replaces the current Reflection.Emit implementation with AssemblyBuilder.Save() support.

This PR is based on @jkotas prototype, but only covers the effort of abstracting all public APIs in System.Reflection.Emit.

Fixes #78542

[dotnet-issue-labeler]

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, to please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-system-reflection
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

We plan to abstract out Reflection.Emit APIs for adding AssemblyBuilder.Save() in .NET Core. So that we can have two implementations, one that having old code to support all downlevel runtime, and a new implementation that replaces the current Reflection.Emit implementation with AssemblyBuilder.Save() support.

This PR is based on @jkotas prototype, but only covers the effort of abstracting all public APIs in System.Reflection.Emit.

Creating draft PR as the API proposal is not yet approved

Fixes #78542

Author:	buyaa-n
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-System.Reflection, new-api-needs-documentation
Milestone:	-

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-system-reflection-emit
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

We plan to abstract out Reflection.Emit APIs for adding AssemblyBuilder.Save() in .NET Core. So that we can have two implementations, one that having old code to support all downlevel runtime, and a new implementation that replaces the current Reflection.Emit implementation with AssemblyBuilder.Save() support.

This PR is based on @jkotas prototype, but only covers the effort of abstracting all public APIs in System.Reflection.Emit.

Creating draft PR as the API proposal is not yet approved

Fixes #78542

Author:	buyaa-n
Assignees:	buyaa-n
Labels:	area-System.Reflection.Emit, new-api-needs-documentation
Milestone:	-

[ViktorHofer]

@buyaa-n you forgot to also update the mono suppression file.

That said, with #78654 we can and should move the shared suppressions into the src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/CompatibilitySuppressions.xml file. That removes the duplication between the different CoreLib' suppression files.

[vargaz]

The mono changes look ok.

[jkotas]

LGTM!

[AaronRobinsonMSFT]

Other than the filename changes, this LGTM.

[buyaa-n]

Update: Updated API proposal for using protected abstract APIs approved.

For the new ModuleBuilder APIs instead of GetMetdataToken() sugested:

GetTypeMetadataToken(Type type)
GetFieldMetadataToken(FieldInfo field)
GetMethodMetadataToken(MethodInfo method)
GetMethodMetadataToken(ConstructorInfo constructor)
GetSignatureMetadataToken(SignatureHelper signature)
GetStringMetadataToken(string stringConstant)

All suggested changes are applied to the PR

[steveharter]

This can be removed in the main description:

Creating draft PR as #78542 is not yet approved

[buyaa-n]

The failures unrelated and reported: #75244 #81294, merging