IDE should show modifiers in quick info

[jasonmalinowski]

As a part of the required members work, @333fred realized it really makes sense to show the 'required' modifier in Quick Info if you were to mouse over the property/field name in the object initializer. However, we currently don't show modifiers at all in Quick Info. @CyrusNajmabadi and I couldn't think of any concrete reason not to show modifiers, so we went ahead and just started showing all modifiers as a part of that work.

I just wanted to run this through the design meeting to make sure there aren't some scenarios we missed here and we had some old reason for quick info working the way it did. The only thing I can think of is people may use Quick Info a lot as a way to see the type of a field/property, and having the modifiers in front means it'll be harder to scan to the member's type (which would previously be at the start in C#), but that doesn't seem to be a strong reason.

[sharwell]

Related issues:

• Consider showing 'abstract' in quick info for abstract classes #5739
• Ref returns/locals: Quick Info omits "ref" modifier on properties & locals (needs test) #8453
• Include "volatile" in tool tips for volatile fields #26947 (The design review notes here are especially helpful)
• Include modifiers in tool tips for methods #31083

[jasonmalinowski]

@sharwell Ah, good finds, especially #26947!

[jasonmalinowski]

So we agreed that our prior design in #26947 made good sense. To summarize, the goal there for fields was to show all modifiers, excluding accessibility (since that's already visible in the icon) and certain modifiers that don't impact call sites, like new or unsafe. We think that still generally applies to properties as well. Properties can also have OHI-related modifiers, which we think should also be excluded.

As far as implementation, the SymbolDisplay flags currently have to options: include accessibility and include modifiers. If we can't just modify the behavior of "include modifiers" to what we need, then we'll need to figure out a new flag or set of flags that encompasses what we think we want here. If that's still not viable then we may need to regroup.

[jasonmalinowski]

(Tagging @333fred on this one specifically so he's aware of the decision.)