Tweak MetaData Report format for better readability

[IbrahimMNada]

This pull request only tackle the generated metadata format putting different proprieties on new Lines

Tests were failing due to the differences between escapes in Windows and Linux ,
at the GeneratorTests class in the namespace Microsoft.Gen.MetadataExtractor.Unit.Tests; .
I introduced new method called NormalizeEscapes, which will only escape "\r\n" to neglect the gap between
Windows & Linux, I hope this addition is acceptable.

Before :

After :

the test report has been changed to be aligned with the new formatting.
here are the unit tests :

Microsoft Reviewers: Open in CodeFlow

[IbrahimMNada]

the checks failed because of something related to hybrid caching

[dotnet-comment-bot]

🎉 Good job! The coverage increased 🎉
Update MinCodeCoverage in the project files.

Project	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Gen.MetadataExtractor	57	70
Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Hybrid	82	87

Full code coverage report: https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=956346&view=codecoverage-tab

[dotnet-comment-bot]

‼️ Found issues ‼️

Project	Coverage Type	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Extensions.AI	Line	89	88.54 🔻

🎉 Good job! The coverage increased 🎉
Update MinCodeCoverage in the project files.

Project	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Gen.MetadataExtractor	57	70
Microsoft.Extensions.AI.Abstractions	82	83

Full code coverage report: https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=957466&view=codecoverage-tab

[RussKie]

Project Expected Actual
Microsoft.Gen.MetadataExtractor 57 70

Could you please also bump this threshold?

[IbrahimMNada]

@RussKie Thank you for your valuable feedback, I will fix them ASAP ,

regarding the changing the order of parameters and naming ,I tried to make them consistent with compliance.
same goes for tmp and var.

now all of the are consistent , I could change the three of them if you'd like.

I'll work on the other notes in the meantime

[dotnet-comment-bot]

‼️ Found issues ‼️

Project	Coverage Type	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Extensions.AI	Line	89	88.76 🔻

🎉 Good job! The coverage increased 🎉
Update MinCodeCoverage in the project files.

Project	Expected	Actual
Microsoft.Extensions.AI.Abstractions	82	83
Microsoft.Gen.MetadataExtractor	57	70

Full code coverage report: https://dev.azure.com/dnceng-public/public/_build/results?buildId=957592&view=codecoverage-tab

[IbrahimMNada]

I have excluded JsonEmitter from projects that does not use it, which led the WarningCheks to succussed.
and ran all tests for the whole project to double check that the changes did not break any thing, all is working as expected.

[dariusclay]

It seems the formatting still has inconsistencies, can we fix that?

[IbrahimMNada]

can you please provide me your thoughts on the justifications bellow ?
if you have any further insights please share them with me

[dariusclay]

For example here, arrays should start the bracket on the same line as the property, and containing objects indented only one level

Suggested change

	"MetricReport":
	[
	{
	"TestClasses":
	[
	"MetricReport": [
	{
	"TestClasses": [

[IbrahimMNada]

the reason for this is that all the generators start with an empty line.
the MetaDataGenerator utilizes the MetricsReportsGenerator which will start with a empty line by default.
if you look at ComplianceReports it will be the same.

[IbrahimMNada]

i can for example introduce a new flag to decide whither to keep the newline or not

[dariusclay]

And here it has an extra indentation, and doesn't follow usual JSON formatting for object properties

Suggested change

	"Dimensions":
	{
	"Dimension1": "Dimension1 description."
	}
	"Dimensions": {
	"Dimension1": "Dimension1 description."
	}

[IbrahimMNada]

i have removed the indentations. However putting the open brace up above will require me to change also on Compliance because every json object is opened on a separated line.

[IbrahimMNada]

do you mind changing the compliance ? it remained untouched

[IbrahimMNada]

is there anything further needs to be done ?