Refactor/Improve InvokeAsync to address potential disposing issues

[KlausLoeffelmann]

Addresses #12696, #12697
(Mentioning the latter just for same topic. I do not think, this is an issue really.)

Microsoft Reviewers: Open in CodeFlow

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR refactors the InvokeAsync methods in Control_InvokeAsync.cs to address potential disposing issues and adds improved exception documentation.

• Added a null-check exception comment for the callback parameter.
• Inserted a handle creation check before invoking the asynchronous callback.
• Updated the cancellation token registration handling and its disposal pattern.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
src/System.Windows.Forms/System/Windows/Forms/Control_InvokeAsync.cs	Adds handle creation checks and adjusts cancellation token registration disposal in the async InvokeAsync implementations.
src/System.Windows.Forms/GlobalSuppressions.cs	Introduces new suppressions for CA2007 warnings on the InvokeAsync methods.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

src/System.Windows.Forms/System/Windows/Forms/Control_InvokeAsync.cs:186

• [nitpick] It may be beneficial to add a comment explaining that the cancellation token registration is disposed inside WrappedCallbackAsync to ensure proper unregistration and avoid potential disposal issues in asynchronous contexts.

using (registration)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 73.61111% with 19 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 51.91707%. Comparing base (687601b) to head (f10fa28).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (687601b) and HEAD (f10fa28). Click for more details.

HEAD has 2 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (687601b)	HEAD (f10fa28)
Debug	3	2
test	1	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                  @@
##                main      #13564          +/-   ##
====================================================
- Coverage   77.08926%   51.91707%   -25.17219%     
====================================================
  Files           3272        2064        -1208     
  Lines         644545      287861      -356684     
  Branches       47673       42105        -5568     
====================================================
- Hits          496875      149449      -347426     
+ Misses        144002      135523        -8479     
+ Partials        3668        2889         -779     

Flag	Coverage Δ
Debug	51.91707% <73.61111%> (-25.17219%)	⬇️
integration	18.99633% <2.77778%> (+0.00093%)	⬆️
production	51.91707% <73.61111%> (+0.01861%)	⬆️
test	?
unit	49.32832% <73.61111%> (+0.02078%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Shyam-Gupta]

We can create a function to avoid repeating this pattern.

[Shyam-Gupta]

Just those two suggestions. Rest looks good to me.