Feature/strict flag post signing

[edispring]

Description of the changes

In the case of LTV/LTA post signing the strict flag was not implemented.

Checklist

Please go over this checklist to increase the chances of your PR being worked on in a timely manner. Deviations are allowed with proper justification (see previous section).

• I have read the project's CoC and contribution guidelines.
• I understand and agree to the terms in the Developer Certificate of Origin as applied to this contribution.
• All new code in this PR has full test coverage.

For new features (delete if not applicable)

• I have discussed the implementation of this feature with the project maintainer(s) on the discussion forum or over email.
• I have verified that my changes do not break existing API or CLI functionality, or ensured that all breaking changes are clearly documented in this PR.
• All public API functionality in this PR is documented.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.88%. Comparing base (056e684) to head (2e1c70e).
Report is 12 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #476   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.88%   98.88%           
=======================================
  Files         116      116           
  Lines       16903    16905    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits        16714    16716    +2     
  Misses        189      189           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	98.88% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[MatthiasValvekens]

Hi, sorry about the delay, I didn't have much bandwidth to work on this.

I'm going to merge this with some changes & with regression tests, but from a separate branch since I can't push to yours (perhaps you forgot to enable the "allow maintainers to make changes" option when creating the PR?).

Long story short, I moved the wiring of this option into PostSignInstructions to avoid boolean parameter sprawl. The value of the setting is then derived from the signing context instead of relying on the caller to specify it explicitly (basically, disable strict mode if we're incrementally signing a file that was opened in nonstrict mode). I also tracked down an instance where the fix had not been applied.

[MatthiasValvekens]

Closing in favour of #487.

[MatthiasValvekens]

Released as part of 0.25.2 today. Thanks for taking the initiative on this!