Diagnostic CLI tools

[sdmaclea]

Summary

Add documentation for adding and using the diagnostic command line tools.

[sdmaclea]

This is a very early draft.

[noahfalk]

Thanks @sdmaclea ! I added a few small feedback items but this is a major improvement over where we have been.

[sdmaclea]

@mairaw @rpetrusha Please review.

[sdmaclea]

@mairaw @rpetrusha @Thraka Please review.

[sdmaclea]

@mairaw @rpetrusha @Thraka ping

[mairaw]

Apologies on missing the multiple pings for reviews @sdmaclea! I'll review this soon.

[mairaw]

Thanks @sdmaclea. Left some comments for you to consider.

[sdmaclea]

@mairaw I believe your feedback has been addressed. Please have another look.

[sdmaclea]

@mairaw ping

[mairaw]

I'm wondering if this content should live under https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/additional-tools/. Otherwise, we're creating a third-place on the TOC that talks about tools. We could break down that node into WCF and Diagnostics. Thoughts?

[sdmaclea]

a third-place on the TOC that talks about tools. Thoughts?

We are trying to create a single landing page for diagnostic tools. We would like it to be easily discoverable. Something like https://golang.org/doc/diagnostics.html.

If we think about diagnostic tool users, there are two distinct questions:

• Survey/Language Comparison: I am considering using C#, what tools/features are available
• Reference/End user: I am using C#, how do I diagnose this scenario.

I think https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/additional-tools/ better suits the Survey case. I think https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/additional-tools/diagnostics is better for the Reference case. As a developer I tend to bias toward the Reference case, so that tends to be my innate preference.

I would probably include in both overviews to make it more discoverable.

#14110 will add more tutorial info related to some of these tools.

FWIW the existing https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/additional-tools/ overwhelmed me. It is loaded with heavy acronym usage, and very little conceptual background. I felt like I got whip lash trying to read it. It felt out of place. It needed to be in a WCF article.

[mairaw]