fa4632c41714dfaa699bacc6a947d72668a4deef test: Move boost/stdlib includes last (MarcoFalke)
fa488f131fd4f5bab0d01376c5a5013306f1abcd scripted-diff: Bump copyright headers (MarcoFalke)
fac5c373006a9e4bcbb56843bb85f1aca4d87599 scripted-diff: Sort test includes (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
When writing tests, often includes need to be added or removed. Currently the list of includes is not sorted, so developers that write tests and have `clang-format` installed will either have an unrelated change (sorting) included in their commit or they will have to manually undo the sort.
This pull preempts both issues by just sorting all includes in one commit.
Please be aware that this is **NOT** a change to policy to enforce clang-format or any other developer guideline or process. Developers are free to use whatever tool they want, see also #18651.
Edit: Also includes a commit to bump the copyright headers, so that the touched files don't need to be touched again for that.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
ACK fa4632c41714dfaa699bacc6a947d72668a4deef
jonatack:
ACK fa4632c41714dfaa, light review and sanity checks with gcc build and clang fuzz build
Tree-SHA512: 130a8d073a379ba556b1e64104d37c46b671425c0aef0ed725fd60156a95e8dc83fb6f0b5330b2f8152cf5daaf3983b4aca5e75812598f2626c39fd12b88b180
1e62350ca20898189904a88dfef9ea11ddcd8626 refactor: Improve use of explicit keyword (Fabian Jahr)
c502a6dbfb854ca827a5a3925394f9e09d29b898 lint: Use c++17 std in cppcheck linter (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
I found the `extended-lint-cppcheck` linter still uses `std=c++11` when reviewing #20471. The only difference in the output after this change is one line is missing:
```
src/script/descriptor.cpp:159:5: warning: Struct 'PubkeyProvider' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. [noExplicitConstructor]
```
After some digging, I am still not sure why this one is ignored with c++17 when 40 other`noExplicitConstructor` warnings were still appearing.
In the second commit, I fix these warnings, adding `explicit` where appropriate and adding fixes to ignore otherwise.
ACKs for top commit:
practicalswift:
cr ACK 1e62350ca20898189904a88dfef9ea11ddcd8626: patch looks correct!
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 1e62350ca20898189904a88dfef9ea11ddcd8626
Tree-SHA512: dff7b324429a57160e217cf38d9ddbb6e70c6cb3d3e3e0bd4013d88e07afc2292c3df94d0acf7122e9d486322821682ecf15c8f2724a78667764c05d47f89a12
* Squashed 'src/dashbls/' content from commit 66ee820fbc
git-subtree-dir: src/dashbls
git-subtree-split: 66ee820fbc9e3b97370db8c164904af48327a124
* build: stop tracking build-system generated relic_conf.h.in
* build: add support for building bls-signatures from local subtree
* build: add exclusions to linting scripts and filters
* build: drop bls-signatures (bls-dash) from depends
8f7b93047581c67f2133cdb8c7845471de66c30f Drop the leading 0 from the version number (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
Removes the leading 0 from the version number. The minor version, which we had been using as the major version, is now the major version. The revision, which we had been using as the minor version, is now the minor version. The revision number is dropped. The build number is promoted to being part of the version number. This also avoids issues where it was accidentally not included in the version number.
The CLIENT_VERSION remains the same format as previous as previously, as the Major version was 0 so it never actually got included in it.
The user agent string formatter is updated to follow this new versioning.
***
Honestly I'm just tired of all of the people asking for "1.0" that maybe this'll shut them up. Skip the whole 1.0 thing and go straight to version 22.0!
Also, this means that the terminology we commonly use lines up with how the variables are named. So major versions are actually bumping the major version number, etc.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
Code review ACK 8f7b930475
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 8f7b93047581c67f2133cdb8c7845471de66c30f 🎻
Tree-SHA512: b5c3fae14d4c0a9c0ab3b1db7c949ecc0ac3537646306b13d98dd0efc17c489cdd16d43f0a24aaa28e9c4a92ea360500e05480a335b03f9fb308010cdd93a436
c4606b84329d760d7cee144bebe05807857edaae Add Travis check for single parameter constructors not marked "explicit" (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Make single parameter constructors `explicit` (C++11).
Rationale from the developer notes:
> - By default, declare single-argument constructors `explicit`.
> - *Rationale*: This is a precaution to avoid unintended conversions that might
> arise when single-argument constructors are used as implicit conversion
> functions.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK c4606b84329d760d7cee144bebe05807857edaae
Tree-SHA512: 3e6fd51935fd93b2604b2188664692973d0897469f814cd745b5147d71b99ea5d73c1081cfde9f6393f51f56969e412fcda35d2d54e938a3235b8d40945f31fd
