fix: map delete

[r3v4s]

after value is delete in map by delete(map, key), map variable wasn't updating it-self

Contributors' checklist...

• Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
• Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
• Updated the official documentation or not needed
• No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
• Added references to related issues and PRs
• Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
• Added new benchmarks to generated graphs, if any. More info here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 48.40%. Comparing base (8a0de59) to head (beec187).
Report is 11 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2017      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   46.68%   48.40%   +1.71%     
==========================================
  Files         492      409      -83     
  Lines       69700    62039    -7661     
==========================================
- Hits        32537    30027    -2510     
+ Misses      34448    29512    -4936     
+ Partials     2715     2500     -215     

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

[moul]

Can this be unit tested as well, not just txtar tested?

I'm surprised this code works on the chain, not just with blockchain-less Golang. Map persistence was supposed to be temporarily disabled. Isn't it?

[r3v4s]

Can this be unit tested as well, not just txtar tested?

• _test.gno works fine regardless of patching uverse.gno
  • had similar situtation with cv.map fix: copy value in cv.map #1112

Map persistence was supposed to be temporarily disabled. Isn't it?

• Not sure about this, could you link any related issue

[thehowl]

@moul: Map persistence was supposed to be temporarily disabled. Isn't it?

With #1112, map persistance is already "fixed". IIRC, we didn't add any explicit checks forbidding the usage of map for persisted objects

[moul]

I forgot that map persistence was fixed. We should write documentation on the pros and cons of using a map or AVL tree, updating the Effective GNO or creating a new "Data Structures on Gno" page.

[leohhhn]

@r3v4s I will make the docs on this - if you want to, play around with maps and check the speeds :)