iwyu: Fix warnings in `src/script` and treat them as errors #35011

This PR continues the ongoing effort to enforce IWYU warnings.

See Developer Notes.

<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->

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

<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/35011.

<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <code>&lt;!--meta-tag:bot-skip--&gt;</code> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

• #35072 (cmake: Remove optional definitions from bitcoin-build-config.h by hebasto)
• #34681 (wallet: move rescan logic into ChainScanner and wallet/scan by Eunovo)
• #34566 (feature: Use different datadirs for different signets by ekzyis)
• #33741 (rpc: Optionally print feerates in sat/vb by polespinasa)
• #32729 (test,refactor: extract script template helpers & widen sigop count coverage by l0rinc)

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.

<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->

Concept ACK.

d41095a70d87e84b8c5cdfcefe1c53174fbabac6

Per our policy, "a comment explaining the rationale is required for every use of IWYU pragma: export":

$ git grep -l "IWYU pragma: export" -- src/script
src/script/interpreter.h
src/script/script.h

Concept ACK

Looks like common/ compat/ support/ are now left from that list after this PR is merged

@kevkevinpal from the list I only think only compat/ and support/ are left there is already a PR: 34995 for common/ -> #34995. I don't know if this will be done for QT #33725 (comment)

I don't know if this will be done for QT #33725 (comment)

It will be, though it requires some preliminary work.

Per our policy, "a comment explaining the rationale is required for every use of IWYU pragma: export":

updated the PR to include comments for the left IWYU pragma: export on scr/script

Left some comments.

Almost ACK.

There is a silent merge conflict here. Please apply the following patch during your next rebase to resolve it:

--- a/src/script/sigcache.h
+++ b/src/script/sigcache.h
@@ -11,7 +11,9 @@
 #include <cuckoocache.h>
 #include <script/interpreter.h>
 #include <uint256.h>
-#include <util/byte_units.h>
+// IWYU incorrectly suggests removing this header.
+// See https://github.com/include-what-you-use/include-what-you-use/issues/2014.
+#include <util/byte_units.h> // IWYU pragma: keep
 #include <util/hasher.h>
 
 #include <cstddef>

See also: #35152#pullrequestreview-4179389612.

ACK 74f42e9dd7c5683209d5d366486e1a6def49dcf1.

cc @maflcko

<!--85328a0da195eb286784d51f73fa0af9-->

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. _{Task tidy: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/25481226241/job/76755161377} _{LLM reason (✨ experimental): CI failed due to a C++ build error: psbt.h references an undeclared identifier MUSIG2_PUBNONCE_SIZE (in external_signer.cpp).}

<details><summary>Hints</summary>

Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

• Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.

• A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

• An intermittent issue.

Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

</details>

lgtm, but this needs rebase.

review ACK 74f42e9dd7c5683209d5d366486e1a6def49dcf1 👐

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: review ACK 74f42e9dd7c5683209d5d366486e1a6def49dcf1 👐
ywT1ie3Iu2etfEO07i9/qcxxU+AIr1i/F6m05pazBU4LNgC2ub9u2OUXrXwhNBtS1yDpSJlLi7bRHig12EKeCA==

</details>

lgtm, but this needs rebase.

Right. There is a silent merge conflict, at least with #34225.

@hebasto Do you want to pick this up, and rebase it? Otherwise, this will sit around longer and get more stale over time. I think we should try to reduce the number of open iwyu pull request to at most one, and focus on merging each one after review. Dragging them over months through rebases isn't going to make them better.

Can you squash this down into a single commit?

ACK 6183942513789fb3dc94fa02a097744b149bb69a.

review ACK 6183942513789fb3dc94fa02a097744b149bb69a 🚖

<details><summary>Show signature</summary>

Signature:

untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
trusted comment: review ACK 6183942513789fb3dc94fa02a097744b149bb69a  🚖
is0EyiMAEOoIJWbguPoW1GTHh1xLrtQQRdXGfgHVrx2CB2lOL5dF9j5Oyd+xwmvOvckzHhD6rNute0hserAzBQ==

</details>