show .NET function name when its helpful

> I'm honestly torn here. I think displaying un-obfuscated method names is valuable, however, my work has seen few samples where this is the case. More frequently, I see large, obfuscated names that would be a pain to handle (display) correctly.
>
> We could take a route simliar to de4dot by attempting to identify and rename obfuscated method names but I see that potentially confusing users who pivot from capa to a tool like dnSpy.
>
> Reading your original message I see you say "when possible" which could be a valid path forward, e.g., we only display method names when we can identify the name has not been obfuscated at all (or past an established threshold).

I agree with everything you say here. I'd only recommend including the name when its useful and helpful. I do *not* think we should do any renaming or show any obfuscated names. So, if its reasonably easy to determine if a name is non-obfuscated, then I think we should maybe do that.

How to determine if non-obfuscated? I guess ASCII only, something around entropy, not mixing casing or numbers too weirdly, ...?

We should probably move this into a separate feature request.

_Originally posted by @williballenthin in https://github.com/mandiant/capa/issues/1326#issuecomment-1450098256_

The issue names no files, tests, or entry points. Start by locating how capa currently renders .NET function names, then define and document what counts as a useful non-obfuscated name; done means acceptable names are shown while obfuscated names are omitted, with tests covering the decision.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.