refactor: [tidy] modernize-type-traits #28664

We currently use a mix of both, consolidate to the (less verbose) later.

std::is_integral<T>::value -> std::is_integral_v<T>
std::is_same<A,B>::value -> std::is_same_v<A,B>
std::decay<T>::type -> std:decay_t<T>
std::common_type<D>::type -> std::common_type_t<D>
std::is_lvalue_reference<T>::value -> std::is_lvalue_reference_v<T>
std::remove_cv<T>::type -> std::remove_cv_t<T>
std::enable_if<A,B>::type -> std::enable_if_t<A,B>
std::is_convertible<A,B>::value -> std::is_convertible_v<A,B>
std::underlying_type<T>::type -> std::underlying_type_t<T>

See https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/modernize/type-traits.html.

<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->

Code Coverage

For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.

<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

• #28579 (refactor: Remove redundant checks in compat/assumptions.h by maflcko)
• #25665 (refactor: Add util::Result failure values, multiple error and warning messages by ryanofsky)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

Concept ACK.

Not sure why this is failing, with errors coming from i.e src/bench/nanobench.h. We added that to be filtered as part of #28583 (should be the case anyways as it's upstream code). So tidy should be failing in master, if the filtering does not work?

Not sure if we want to add tidy checks that only benefit the readability for developers, given that a tidy CI result may take anywhere from tens of minutes to hours to get. Thus, the author may be forced to check back after that time, only to force push for a tidy-up for an otherwise passing CI result?

No opinion on this, but if those "style checks" are added, might as well add readability-redundant-smartptr-get in the same go.

Might come back to this when bear/tidy are working.