Allow defining the assemblies where the problems are located

[codemonkey85]

This is my attempt to solve #180.

[codemonkey85]

Just realized the obvious problem of the input files not being where they need to be in an outside assembly.

[eduherminio]

Just realized the obvious problem of the input files not being where they need to be in an outside assembly.

Yeah, I'm afraid it's not as simple.
But I really like your proposal, this is definitely the right path (no pun intended).

I'll think about this in the following days and see if I can come up with a nice solution to the input files problem.

[eduherminio]

Just to be clear about what the problem to solve is:

• It's not about the location of the input files relative to the executable.
  AoCHelper always relied on the problems being copied to the output folder, and with this change the one in charge to do so would be the library where the problem classes are contained.
  Providing this is configured correctly, running the binaries just work and VS execution just works as well
• However, input files aren't expected to be located next to the project file of the entry assembly, and that's why dotnet run CLI executions fail to find the input files even if they're correctly copied to the bin\... dir

[eduherminio]

@codemonkey85 Could you verify that if you replicate this pattern, everything works smoothly?

Scenarios to test:

• IDE run (VS, Code, Rider, whatever you're using, if any)
• dotnet run
• dotnet build + .dll/binary invocation
• dotnet publish + binary invocation

Pattern to replicate: (using v3.1.0-alpha.1 from NuGet)

• Making sure the library input files are copied the output dirs
• Creating a base 'library day' that forces the input files to be expected next to the .dll/binary even when dotnet run is used .

[codemonkey85]

@eduherminio The public abstract class BaseLibraryDay is not available from the NuGet, so I created it to match what you linked to. Using that as the base class, the scenarios all passed.

[eduherminio]

I didn't intend to ship it, because its presence might be just confusing, and just include the needed override as part of the documentation.

What's your opinion on that?

[codemonkey85]

Yeah, I think that's fine. I suppose mine is more of a niche requirement anyway

[eduherminio]

Thanks again for raising the issue and for your contribution @codemonkey85, I'll add some documentation and examples and release 3.1.0 in the next 24h.