Switch to using built in source link feature

[justindbaur]

🎟️ Tracking

📔 Objective

We introduced including the git hash in our config endpoint before .NET 8 but in .NET 8 this became built in, albeit with a different format than we had used. This removes out opt out and deletes our home grown solution. This has the awesome side effect of cleaning up the built output a good amount.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/compatibility/sdk/8.0/source-link

The format that is used by the built in solution is: 2025.8.1+b7200837c3835c005ec3ae6a45b4a3ffa42d1c38 so to get the same information as we were getting before we split by a +. Take the first bit as the version and slice off the second part to only 8 characters.

In order to make unit testing this more possible and to make it more guarunteed to return a value instead of null I switched to using typeof(AssemblyHelpers).Assembly to get the assembly instead of Assembly.GetEntryAssembly() the behavior change is that we will be getting the information out of the Core assembly instead of whichever assembly was started like Api, Admin, or Identity but since Core is also a local dependency and not consumed via a nuget package or something the values should always be equal.

Before:

After:

📸 Screenshots

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 4a5b9339-5452-4eb4-99fd-5fb0da9ba644

Great job! No new security vulnerabilities introduced in this pull request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 41.17647% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 49.49%. Comparing base (b720083) to head (7c0edd6).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/Core/Utilities/AssemblyHelpers.cs	41.17%	7 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6297      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   49.51%   49.49%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1783     1783              
  Lines       79374    79375       +1     
  Branches     7054     7055       +1     
==========================================
- Hits        39299    39289      -10     
- Misses      38544    38551       +7     
- Partials     1531     1535       +4     

☔ 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.

[withinfocus]

Let's add some safety in case we're not in a Git repo or have other limitations.

[withinfocus]

Coding from a phone 😬 ... 😜

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud