Enable some bugprone clang-tidy checks, which seem useful.
Apart from a test-only bug, they didn't find anything severe, but I think it still makes sense to enable them, so that it is easier to read the resulting code. Also, it is trivial to disable them, if they turn out annoying.
<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
<!--006a51241073e994b41acfe9ec718e94-->
<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->
See the guideline and AI policy for information on the review process.
| Type | Reviewers |
|---|---|
| Concept ACK | hebasto |
If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <code><!--meta-tag:bot-skip--></code> into the comment that the bot should ignore.
<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->
<!--85328a0da195eb286784d51f73fa0af9-->
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed.
<sub>Task tidy: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/39580996840/job/119158281831</sub>
<sub>LLM reason (✨ experimental): The build failed because Clang treated the unused copy_target variable in util_not_null_tests.cpp as an error (-Werror).</sub>
<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>
Enable some bugprone clang-tidy checks...
Concept ACK.
The code change does not change any behavior, because the name is not
used in the compile-time context.
Also, fix a test bug.
Also, instead of using the erase-remove idiom consistenly, just use the
C++20 std::erase here.
Note: Wallets are unique, so the code change does not change any
behavior.
Also, sort
Whenever the check fires, a missing LIFETIMEBOUND should be added.