Upgrade ServicePulse to .NET 10

[jasontaylordev]

Summary

Upgrades ServicePulse to .NET 10.

Changes

Target Framework Updates

• ServicePulse → net10.0
• ServicePulse.Tests → net10.0
• Particular.PlatformSample.ServicePulse → net10.0

Dockerfile

• SDK: mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/sdk:10.0
• Runtime: mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/aspnet:10.0-noble-chiseled-composite

Breaking Changes Fixed

API	.NET 8	.NET 10
IPNetwork type	Microsoft.AspNetCore.HttpOverrides.IPNetwork	System.Net.IPNetwork
Forwarded headers	KnownNetworks	KnownIPNetworks
Network prefix	IPNetwork.Prefix	IPNetwork.BaseAddress
Certificate loading	new X509Certificate2(path)	X509CertificateLoader.LoadCertificateFromFile(path)

Other

• Fixed IDE0018 code style warning in ServicePulse.Host (unrelated, but required for build)

Testing

• ✅ Solution builds successfully
• ✅ Docker build succeeds
• ✅ Container starts without errors
• ✅ HTTP requests return 200 OK
• ✅ All 76 unit tests pass

Notes

• ServicePulse.Host remains on net48 (Windows service hosting - separate migration effort)
• This also resolves the MVID mismatch issue (alternative to Fix Docker container MVID mismatch error #2845)

[johnsimons]

I believe this effort is being completed as part of #2786

[johnsimons]

I am also unsure why we need to keep the single project on net48?

[jasontaylordev]

@mikeminutillo please review/approve or close if covered by #2786

[johnsimons]

Or maybe the alternative is to just remove this host entirely once #2786 is merged 😉

[jasontaylordev]

I am also unsure why we need to keep the single project on net48?

ServicePulse.Host is the Windows-only self-hosted version that uses OWIN/Katana for hosting. Upgrading it from net48 would require investigating whether those OWIN dependencies have .NET 10+ equivalents, potentially rearchitecting the hosting approach, and additional testing for Windows Service scenarios.

That felt like yak shaving territory for this PR - the goal here was to fix the Docker MVID mismatch issue by way of an upgrade to .NET 10. Keeping focused on smaller steps means we can get this fix merged and working, then tackle the ServicePulse.Host modernization as a separate, deliberate effort if/when needed. See also #2159.

[mikeminutillo]

@mikeminutillo please review/approve or close if covered by #2786

@jasontaylordev Every change represented here is also in #2786