DNSName: correct len and offset types

[chbruyand]

Short description

This PR format dnsname.{hh,cc} files and corrects the type of len and offset arguments from int to size_t.

Checklist

I have:

• read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
• compiled this code
• tested this code
• included documentation (including possible behaviour changes)
• documented the code
• added or modified regression test(s)
• added or modified unit test(s)
• checked that this code was merged to master

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 7623113506

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

We've detected an issue with your CI configuration that might affect the accuracy of this pull request's coverage report.
To ensure accuracy in future PRs, please see these guidelines.
A quick fix for this PR: rebase it; your next report should be accurate.

• 56 of 61 (91.8%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• 947 unchanged lines in 22 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.04%) to 57.674%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
pdns/dnsname.cc	56	61	91.8%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
modules/gpgsqlbackend/gpgsqlbackend.cc	1	88.62%
pdns/dnsdist-console.hh	1	0.0%
pdns/pollmplexer.cc	1	82.39%
ext/luawrapper/include/LuaContext.hpp	2	13.77%
pdns/dnsname.cc	4	92.03%
pdns/misc.cc	4	62.51%
pdns/dnssecsigner.cc	5	96.49%
pdns/signingpipe.cc	5	86.02%
pdns/dnsdist-carbon.cc	6	59.34%
pdns/dnsdist-tcp.cc	8	75.9%

Totals
Change from base Build 7580951414:	-0.04%
Covered Lines:	107823
Relevant Lines:	155564

---

💛 - Coveralls

[rgacogne]

I'm wondering if it would be better to move the formatting of the files to a different pull request, so that we can focus on the (hopefully) non-impact of the type changes in this PR? In theory it should not matter but we get clang-tidy warnings for the whole PR, not per commit, so it feels like this PR is changing a lot of things when it isn't.

[chbruyand]

I'm wondering if it would be better to move the formatting of the files to a different pull request, so that we can focus on the (hopefully) non-impact of the type changes in this PR? In theory it should not matter but we get clang-tidy warnings for the whole PR, not per commit, so it feels like this PR is changing a lot of things when it isn't.

Agreed. I'll also stick to not format/clean anything not required.

[rgacogne]

The change looks good to me, there is no valid reason for the length or the offset to be negative. Of course there is a small risk than an existing piece of code relies on the existing behaviour, but then I think it's a bug that needs to be fixed.
I just pushed a commit to a throw-away branch (https://github.com/rgacogne/pdns/tree/dnsname-test-negative) that aborts if the length or the offset is negative, let's see if it passes our CI.

[rgacogne]

Of course there is a small risk than an existing piece of code relies on the existing behaviour, but then I think it's a bug that needs to be fixed. I just pushed a commit to a throw-away branch (https://github.com/rgacogne/pdns/tree/dnsname-test-negative) that aborts if the length or the offset is negative, let's see if it passes our CI.

The CI run was successful!

I would not mind at least one other review before merging this PR, though :-)

[omoerbeek]

One nit