faf55fc80b doc: Remove ParseInt mentions in documentation (MarcoFalke)
3333282933 refactor: Remove unused Parse(U)Int* (MarcoFalke)
fa84e6c36c bitcoin-tx: Reject + sign in MutateTxDel* (MarcoFalke)
face2519fa bitcoin-tx: Reject + sign in vout parsing (MarcoFalke)
fa8acaf0b9 bitcoin-tx: Reject + sign in replaceable parsing (MarcoFalke)
faff25a558 bitcoin-tx: Reject + sign in locktime (MarcoFalke)
dddd9e5fe3 bitcoin-tx: Reject + sign in nversion parsing (MarcoFalke)
fab06ac037 rest: Use SAFE_CHARS_URI in SanitizeString error msg (MarcoFalke)
8888bb499d rest: Reject + sign in /blockhashbyheight/ (MarcoFalke)
fafd43c691 test: Reject + sign when parsing regtest deployment params (MarcoFalke)
fa123afa0e Reject + sign when checking -ipcfd (MarcoFalke)
fa479857ed Reject + sign in SplitHostPort (MarcoFalke)
fab4c2967d net: Reject + sign when parsing subnet mask (MarcoFalke)
fa89652e68 init: Reject + sign in -*port parsing (MarcoFalke)
fa9c45577d cli: Reject + sign in -netinfo level parsing (MarcoFalke)
fa98041325 refactor: Use ToIntegral in CreateFromDump (MarcoFalke)
fa23ed7fc2 refactor: Use ToIntegral in ParseHDKeypath (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The legacy int parsing is problematic, because it accepts the `+` sign for unsigned integers. In all cases this is either:
* Useless, because the `+` sign was already rejected.
* Erroneous and inconsistent, when third party parsers reject it. (C.f. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32365)
* Confusing, because the `+` sign is neither documented, nor can it be assumed to be present.
Fix all issues by removing the legacy int parsing.
ACKs for top commit:
stickies-v:
re-ACK faf55fc80b
brunoerg:
code review ACK faf55fc80b
Tree-SHA512: a311ab6a58fe02a37741c1800feb3dcfad92377b4bfb61b433b2393f52ba89ef45d00940972b2767b213a3dd7b59e5e35d5b659c586eacdfe4e565a77b12b19f
fad009af49