## Summary of the Pull Request
Handles duplicate keybindings by using the first occurrence and ignoring
the rest (in `ContextMenuViewModel.Keybindings` and
`IContextMenuContext.Keybindings`).
Replaces LINQ with direct iteration for clarity.
Simplifies `CheckKeybinding` by removing redundant null checks and
clarifying the key-to-binding matching logic, improving both readability
and efficiency.
Add a new method to `KeyChordHelpers.FormatForDebug` that formats
KeyChord as string to help debugging.
Makes `KeyChordHelpers` class a static class.
<!-- Please review the items on the PR checklist before submitting-->
## PR Checklist
- [x] Closes: #41712
- [ ] **Communication:** I've discussed this with core contributors
already. If the work hasn't been agreed, this work might be rejected
- [x] **Tests:** all pass
- [x] **Localization:** All end-user-facing strings can be localized
- [x] **Dev docs:** Added/updated
- [x] **New binaries:** Added on the required places
- [ ] [JSON for
signing](https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys/blob/main/.pipelines/ESRPSigning_core.json)
for new binaries
- [ ] [WXS for
installer](https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys/blob/main/installer/PowerToysSetup/Product.wxs)
for new binaries and localization folder
- [ ] [YML for CI
pipeline](https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys/blob/main/.pipelines/ci/templates/build-powertoys-steps.yml)
for new test projects
- [ ] [YML for signed
pipeline](https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys/blob/main/.pipelines/release.yml)
- [x] **Documentation updated:** If checked, please file a pull request
on [our docs
repo](https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/windows-uwp/tree/docs/hub/powertoys)
and link it here: #xxx
<!-- Provide a more detailed description of the PR, other things fixed,
or any additional comments/features here -->
## Detailed Description of the Pull Request / Additional comments
<!-- Describe how you validated the behavior. Add automated tests
wherever possible, but list manual validation steps taken as well -->
## Validation Steps Performed
Validated using a custom extension that has a duplicate item in the
context menu.
What the title says. 😄
Rather than relying on the potentially overloaded `!=` or `==` operators
when checking for null, now we'll use the `is` expression (possibly
combined with the `not` operator) to ensure correct checking. Probably
overkill for many of these classes, but decided to err on the side of
consistency. Would matter more on classes that may be inherited or
extended.
Using `is` and `is not` will provide us a guarantee that no
user-overloaded equality operators (`==`/`!=`) is invoked when a
`expression is null` is evaluated.
In code form, changed all instances of:
```c#
something != null
something == null
```
to:
```c#
something is not null
something is null
```
The one exception was checking null on a `KeyChord`. `KeyChord` is a
struct which is never null so VS will raise an error when trying this
versus just providing a warning when using `keyChord != null`. In
reality, we shouldn't do this check because it can't ever be null. In
the case of a `KeyChord` it **would** be a `KeyChord` equivalent to:
```c#
KeyChord keyChord = new ()
{
Modifiers = 0,
Vkey = 0,
ScanCode = 0
};
```
I just blindly moved all the messages. But _this_ one really makes more
sense as a UI message. It's got framework elements. It us used to
actually open a UI element. The whole thing is very UI specific.
re: #40113
_targets #40504_
Major refactoring for #40113
This moves a large swath of the codebase to a `.Core` project. "Core"
doesn't have any explicit dependencies on "extensions", settings or the
current `MainListPage`. It's just a filterable list of stuff. This
should let us make this component a bit more reusable.
This is half of a PR. As I did this, I noticed a particular bit of code
for TopLevelVViewModels and CommandPaletteHost that was _very rough_.
Solving it in this PR would make "move everything to a new project" much
harder to review. So I'm submitting two PRs simultaneously, so we can
see the changes separately, then merge together.
