Rolling auditto configuration

[maciejw]

this PR addresses #113

@nblumhardt I think, I'll stop here, take a look

I did few things

• 7b14346 - it was to painful to scroll and find not obsolete methods, now latest overloads are at the end in separate files.
• 2ee7bb5 - I notices order of parameters in docs was not correct.
• e41ae31 - this is change of public API
• aef8b04 - I extracted IO operations to separate class, just like Clock
• d8e0098 - this is change in implementation and tests

after this PR I want to propose few changes to internal implementation, to make this code more manageable:

• extract creation of FileSink and SharedFileSink form RollingFileSink, this will also remove some constructor parameters
• inject PathRoller into RollingFileSink as a dependency this will be needed in next point
• extract retention policy method from RollingFileSink, this also will remove few parameters from constructor
• it would be nice to be consistent and open files in sinks constructor, now FileSink and SharedFileSink do it in constructor and RollingFileSink does it in Emit
• after this RollingFileSink will have only parameters that it needs and will be easier to understand and optimize further, one of a few changes that comes to mind is consolidation of parameters just like we did with rollOnFileSizeLimit and fileSizeLimitBytes in public contract. :)

I hope this PR is not too big.

[nblumhardt]

Thanks! Organisation of the commits is good :-)

There's quite a bit to digest here, it'll take some time to review.

I've tried re-queuing the PR build, not sure what broke in there ....

[maciejw]

take your time

this build is related to sourcelink github support, I'll let you know if I figure out something with it... there is an update to beta version of this package, https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub/1.0.0 I'll try to build it in WSL and see if it can be reproduced and fixed, and I'll make separate PR in case of success :)

[nblumhardt]

Howdy! I spotted more commits coming to this one so I left it to bake, guessing you're at another point we might review again, @maciejw ? I'll do my best to get 👀 on it if so :-) thanks!

[maciejw]

@nblumhardt hello, all work besides conflicts is done on my part, of course I welcome feedback and I'll apply any code changes you desire... for now, I'll resolve conflicts and we can try to move with this forward...

[nblumhardt]

Great, thanks for the update, @maciejw 👍

[nblumhardt]

Hi @maciejw - doesn't look like we managed to move forward with this one; if you're still keen to push ahead, please let me know, just closing for housekeeping purposes :)