Add T Create(Guid) to ILcmFactory<T>

[hahn-kev]

Right now to make a given object with a specific GUID you need to use a specialized factory method, this PR adds a low lever API to make any object with a predefined GUID.

There was a conflict with ICmPictureFactory because it declared it's own version with the same signature which I then had to remove from the actual CmPictureFactory.

---

This change is 

[github-actions]

LCM Tests

    16 files  ±0      16 suites  ±0   2m 52s ⏱️ ±0s
 2 828 tests +1   2 808 ✅ +1   20 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
11 260 runs  +4  11 081 ✅ +4  179 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 0808a6a. ± Comparison against base commit 93d7e90.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[jasonleenaylor]

src/SIL.LCModel/LcmGenerate/factory.vm.cs line 67 at r1 (raw file):

				throw new InvalidOperationException("Can not create more than one ${className}");
#end
			if (guid == Guid.Empty) guid = Guid.NewGuid();

Is this a real use case we want to support? I can't imagine a case where you want to create an unowned object with a guid that you don't know...
I'd throw instead.

[jasonleenaylor]

So after looking at this and seeing that you only had to remove one I realized the more common pattern for this is the create which takes a Guid and an owner. It also you might something like that in practice. See the FactoryAdditions for LexRefTypeFactory for an example.

Reviewed 8 of 8 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @hahn-kev)

[hahn-kev]

src/SIL.LCModel/LcmGenerate/factory.vm.cs line 67 at r1 (raw file):

				throw new InvalidOperationException("Can not create more than one ${className}");
#end
			if (guid == Guid.Empty) guid = Guid.NewGuid();

Is this a real use case we want to support? I can't imagine a case where you want to create an unowned object with a guid that you don't know...
I'd throw instead.

Well I didn't support it originally (I threw as well), but the tests for ICmPicture had an explicit test for passing in an empty GUID. So in order to not break existing code I kept that test passing.