Add missing C# and F# kernels

[amoghmc]

Add missing C# and F# kernels.
These are needed to create a default kernel else it will return an empty kernel.

[BigBigMiao]

@amoghmc I thought the C# and F# kernel already there by default?

[amoghmc]

@amoghmc I thought the C# and F# kernel already there by default?

They were but a recent commit removed them so I am adding them back again.

[BigBigMiao]

@amoghmc Sorry for the confusion, what I meant was wouldn't the C# and F# kernel already added to CompositeKernel when creating by default. And in that case, would explicitly adding C# and F# kernel in InProccessDotnetInteractiveKernelBuilder been unnecessary

What error did you see when you create InProccessDotnetInteractiveKernelBuilder without explicitly adding C# and F# kernel

[amoghmc]

@BigBigMiao

Error: Microsoft.Dotnet.Interactive.NoSuitableKernelException: No handler registered on kernel csharp for command : Submit code: Console.WriteLine("Hello World");

[amoghmc]

Although the actual fix was this:

var kernel = DotnetInteractiveKernelBuilder
                .CreateDefaultInProcessKernelBuilder() // add C# and F# kernels
                .AddCSharpKernel(["c#", "C#"])
                // .AddCSharpKernel([]) or this will do as well but then u cannot use c# or C#
                .Build();
var result = await kernel.RunSubmitCodeCommandAsync("Console.WriteLine(\"Hello World\")", "csharp");

This is because .AddCSharpKernel() results in this error below:

Unhandled exception. System.ArgumentException: The kernel name or alias 'csharp' is already in use.

As the default value would end up as ["c#", "C#", "csharp"]
I thought of doing it as a separate pull request. You can use any set of values for the kernel aliases as long as it does not contain "csharp" or "fsharp" incase of AddFSharpKernel()

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 73.02%. Comparing base (88dda88) to head (9d35703).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6283      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   77.24%   73.02%   -4.23%     
==========================================
  Files         200      306     +106     
  Lines       14473    17591    +3118     
  Branches        0      406     +406     
==========================================
+ Hits        11180    12845    +1665     
- Misses       3293     4473    +1180     
- Partials        0      273     +273     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	73.02% <ø> (-4.23%)	⬇️

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[LittleLittleCloud]

@amoghmc Thanks for the PR, merging now