Limit typeparams for Fake options and builder classes

[blairconrad]

Could've been done as part of #1465, but I didn't think of it.
In addition to just providing a better view for the public API, this change removes 6 nullability warnings:

Creation\FakeOptions.cs(20,68): warning CS8604: Possible null reference argument for parameter 'obj' in 'void Action<object>.Invoke(object obj)'. 
Creation\FakeOptions.cs(84,31): warning CS8604: Possible null reference argument for parameter 'argument' in 'void Guard.AgainstNull(object argument, string argumentName)'. 
Creation\FakeOptions.cs(85,60): warning CS8604: Possible null reference argument for parameter 'fakedObject' in 'void FakeOptions<T>.ConfigureFakeToWrap(object fakedObject, object wrappedObject)'. 
Creation\FakeOptions.cs(85,66): warning CS8604: Possible null reference argument for parameter 'wrappedObject' in 'void FakeOptions<T>.ConfigureFakeToWrap(object fakedObject, object wrappedObject)'. 
FakeOptionsExtensions.cs(24,51): warning CS8604: Possible null reference argument for parameter 'fakedObject' in 'FakeManager Fake.GetFakeManager(object fakedObject)'. 
FakeOptionsExtensions.cs(56,59): warning CS8604: Possible null reference argument for parameter 'fake' in 'IAnyCallConfigurationWithNoReturnTypeSpecified A.CallTo(object fake)'. 

[thomaslevesque]

Thanks @blairconrad, looks good to me. Why [WIP]?

[blairconrad]

It's technically breaking. Check out the labels. We made the same distinction with #1465.

[thomaslevesque]

Ah, yes, of course. So... Just keep this open until we decide to release 6.0?

[blairconrad]

Just keep this open until we decide to release 6.0?

Pretty annoying, right? On the other hand, how different is it from keeping #1641 open until then?

We can close the PR, if you like. Or open an issue referencing the PR, then close the PR and reopen later!

I'm secretly hoping we'll move onto 6.0 soonish. I'm nearly through my "reduce nullability warning without making user-visible changes" work.

[thomaslevesque]

On the other hand, how different is it from keeping #1641 open until then?

It's not, I guess!

We can close the PR, if you like. Or open an issue referencing the PR, then close the PR and reopen later!

No, it's fine!

I'm secretly hoping we'll move onto 6.0 soonish. I'm nearly through my "reduce nullability warning without making user-visible changes" work.

Nice!
We have a few on-hold issues, I think.
Time to think of other urgent breaking changes!

[thomaslevesque]

Looks like your branch is still out of date... Did you rebase after merging #1672 ?

[blairconrad]

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to annoy you with this. I knew you had other commits in the hopper, and probably shouldn't've pushed. Will hold off repushing.

[thomaslevesque]

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to annoy you with this. I knew you had other commits in the hopper, and probably shouldn't've pushed. Will hold off repushing.

Oh, I don't mind. It shouldn't conflict with the other PR anyway

[blairconrad]

Properly rebased now, @thomaslevesque! No rush.

[thomaslevesque]

Still looking good! Thanks @blairconrad

[blairconrad]

Thank you,, sir.

[afakebot]

This change has been released as part of FakeItEasy 6.0.0-beta.1.