Fix go to definition for conversions on invalid constructor overloads

[Rekkonnect]

Closes #73498 Closes #77545

This also adds tests for explicit conversions on object creation expressions.

[AlekseyTs]

We need to have direct tests for SemanticModel API, plus an explanation what was the old behavior, why it was wrong, etc. #Closed

[Rekkonnect]

@AlekseyTs this is ready for review

[AlekseyTs]

plus an explanation what was the old behavior, why it was wrong, etc.

Was the explanation provided? Basically we need a clear description of the problem with the SemanticModel API. The reason why you think the present behavior is wrong, a description of the expected behavior with a reason behind the expectation.

#Closed

[Rekkonnect]

Was the explanation provided? I added an explanation here: https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/pull/78514/files#diff-d901fc0a7ce2d67b0336c3708a45962ee31ae1ce7c9c67e79d3def4fc8f947bfR1913-R1916

I can reword it if you feel like it doesn't provide enough information

[AlekseyTs]

I think this isn't quite what I was looking for. I was looking for a description of your intent in this PR and the reason behind the intent. Something like: "I intend to change behavior *** API for the scenarios ***. The current behavior of the API is ***. I think it should be *** instead, because ***." Obviously your ultimate goal is to get some IDE scenarios working, but simply stating that is not sufficient for changing how compiler API behaves. In order for the Compiler team to review the PR, we need the intent stated in "Compiler API" terms. #Closed

[Rekkonnect]

@AlekseyTs updated the description and brought the PR up to date, ptal

[AlekseyTs]

Done with review pass (commit 8) #Closed

[Rekkonnect]

@AlekseyTs resolved your comments, could you ptal again?

[AlekseyTs]

@dotnet/roslyn-compiler For a second review for a community PR.

[AlekseyTs]

@dotnet/roslyn-compiler For a second review for a community PR.

[AlekseyTs]

@dotnet/roslyn-compiler For a second review for a community PR.