Properly show negative ObjectID properties

[YeldhamDev]

What problem(s) does this PR solve?

• Closes EditorDebuggerRemoteObject in Inspector shows ObjectID with wrong signedness #96378.

Additional information

ObjectIDs of RefCounted objects use their first bit to flag themselves as such. This means that their ID will show as a negative value. This PR fixes EditorPropertyObjectID assuming that they're always positive.

[AThousandShips]

This might not be the correct solution I'd say, the value isn't negative it just becomes a negative value when parsed through Variant, it should probably be displayed as positive everywhere. The value is always positive, the most significant bit is used to signal ref counted though, the resulting value isn't negative and it'll be incorrectly displayed strictly speaking

[YeldhamDev]

The thing is that if you use something like get_instance_from_id(), you will need to pass the negative value for it to work.

[AThousandShips]

How is that relevant though? They aren't persistent so why would you ever copy it from the inspector into a variable? It's not valid across sessions, is anyone actually doing that?

[YeldhamDev]

What I mean is that while internally it is always a positive value, for the stuff users interact with it is not. And showing it as a positive is technically lying to them.

[AThousandShips]

Not really, and by that logic we should change the representation of all unsigned values to be signed, but I don't see how it matters because the value isn't useful in practice when in the inspector, you can't use it, so why is displaying the value incorrectly needed?

[YeldhamDev]

Not really, and by that logic we should change the representation of all unsigned values to be signed

What even is this comparison?

but I don't see how it matters because the value isn't useful in practice when in the inspector, you can't use it, so why is displaying the value incorrectly needed?

Because everywhere else it's displayed like this. print(), get_instance_id(), the inspector title... For the user, the "incorrect" value is the correct one.

[AThousandShips]

Regardless I'm against this change because it's not correct to the value, and how it's printed is irrelevant IMO as the value isn't used from here

But won't reject it but I don't think it's appropriate based on the justifications

Regardless I don't think it's appropriate to cherry pick this enhancement, or call it a bug