DolphinQt2: Add missing Q_OBJECT macro to all QObject-related classes missing it

[lioncash]

Without this macro, if any signals or slots were attempted to be used, they wouldn't work; neither would various other features of the Qt meta-object system. This can also lead to weird behavior in other circumstances. Qt's documentation specifically states:

Therefore, we strongly recommend that all subclasses of QObject use the Q_OBJECT macro regardless of whether or not they actually use signals, slots, and properties.

on its page for "The Meta-Object System", which can be seen here: https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/metaobjects.html

Let's opt for "always do the right thing", and keep the code extensible for the future and not have random things blow up on us.

[spycrab]

Still questionable IMHO since we have to add all moc'd header files to our vcxproj manually which means we're not doing much in terms of future-proofing.

[lioncash]

This, I would not consider a failing of moc (rather the fact we don't use CMake for Windows builds), we also have code-review to catch things like that.

From a code perspective, it prevents things from randomly blowing up. In the case of not doing this, and it blows up on someone, they'd be adding the relevant files to the vcxproj file anyways if they want their code to compile. If they don't know how vcxproj files work with Qt, then it just becomes a needless pain in the ass for that person. This gets the bulk out of the way, so that's not even a necessary step. New files will just be audited as they're added.

[spycrab]

This, I would not consider a failing of moc

Of course not moc's fault.

we also have code-review to catch things like that.

Then again a missing Q_OBJECT macro would be caught by reviewers as well (Also probably by the person compiling it).

From a code perspective, it prevents things from randomly blowing up.

Seems to be pretty predictable tbh. Things like signals and such won't work.

Not blocking this btw, only pointing out that we should probably make sure the macros that are placed by this PR actually get parsed by moc on every platform we support and they don't just kinda sit there.

[lioncash]

I tested prior to opening the PR; they parse fine

[spycrab]

They don't get parsed by moc on every platform.

[lioncash]

You're going to have to elaborate on what you mean. I've tested this on macOS, Windows, and both on Debian and a Fedora installation, and they generate the necessary source files and compile fine.

[spycrab]

If we don't add files manually into the Moc section in our .vcxproj, the Q_OBJECT macro will get ignored. That's why I think this change only makes sense in conjunction with either
(a) Adding all files that include a Q_OBJECT macro into this section
(b) Actually using automoc / CMake on Windows

[lioncash]

Is that not what I've done in the change itself? (specifically (a))

[spycrab]

Oh god, now I see it >.<, really sorry for wasting your time: GitHub's search for file feature threw me off (still my fault for being stupid tho). LGTM now!

[lioncash]

Noooo worries, I've been hit by the search (sometimes, even the diff) being a little wonky as well; it happens.