feat(gnovm): sync code AssignStmt - ValueDecl

[hthieu1110]

This PR aims at fixing this issue 1958

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 63.27%. Comparing base (bd1d76e) to head (4adcf7b).
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3017      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   63.79%   63.27%   -0.52%     
==========================================
  Files         549      548       -1     
  Lines       78819    78390     -429     
==========================================
- Hits        50279    49598     -681     
- Misses      25150    25441     +291     
+ Partials     3390     3351      -39     

Flag	Coverage Δ
contribs/gnofaucet	14.82% <ø> (ø)
misc/genstd	79.72% <ø> (ø)

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.

[MikaelVallenet]

Looks good to me 🔥

[hthieu1110]

thanks @mvertes for your time and your reviews , I've addressed all your feedbacks. Please re-check the PR, please. Thanksssss.

[omarsy]

Sorry my last request. What do you think about moving this check into the defineOrDecl function?

[hthieu1110]

yeah I think it's good idea. Because it was done in AssertCompatible for Define so it's kind of duplicated check but regroup all needed check in defineOrDecl is OK I think

[ltzmaxwell]

When handling assignStmt and valueDecl, there are two main tasks:

• Ensuring the compatibility of the statement(in type_check.go)

  gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang/type_check.go

  Line 838 in 7ef606c

  func (x *AssignStmt) AssertCompatible(store Store, last BlockNode) {

• Performing declarations for nameExprs(in preprocess.go, defineOrDecl)

To unify the specifications for assignStmt and valueDecl, these tasks should be handled consistently for both.

For example:

package main

func main() {
    var a int = "hello" // valueDecl

    var a int
    a = "hello" // assignStmt
}

In this code, both valueDecl and assignStmt should follow the same logic during type checking to ensure compatibility(in type_check.go).

To summarize, we should apply both AssertCompatible(step1) and defineOrDecl (step2) operations to handle assignStmt and valueDecl consistently.

what do you think?

[ltzmaxwell]

Related: #2695

[hthieu1110]

When handling assignStmt and valueDecl, there are two main tasks:

• Ensuring the compatibility of the statement(in type_check.go)

  gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang/type_check.go

  Line 838 in 7ef606c

  func (x *AssignStmt) AssertCompatible(store Store, last BlockNode) {

• Performing declarations for nameExprs(in preprocess.go, defineOrDecl)

To unify the specifications for assignStmt and valueDecl, these tasks should be handled consistently for both.

For example:

package main

func main() {
    var a int = "hello" // valueDecl

    var a int
    a = "hello" // assignStmt
}

In this code, both valueDecl and assignStmt should follow the same logic during type checking to ensure compatibility(in type_check.go).

To summarize, we should apply both AssertCompatible(step1) and defineOrDecl (step2) operations to handle assignStmt and valueDecl consistently.

what do you think?

Thanks for your review.

I've checked the code, there is only one re-usable code in AssignStmt assertCompatible is:

if numNames != len(cft.Results) {
panic(fmt.Sprintf(
	"assignment mismatch: "+
		"%d variables but %s returns %d values",
	numNames, cx.Func.String(), len(cft.Results)))
}

Which is already handled in defineOrDecl.

Other processings are mostly for Assign.

I've tried to refactor to be able to share the code even more (refactor/reuse assertCompatible) but don't find any "happy/good" solution. Do you have any idea on that ?

[jefft0]

Removed the review/triage-pending label because this PR was reviewed by core devs mvertes and ltzmaxwell.

[jefft0]

Hello @hthieu1110 . Many of the CI checks failed because of a misconfiguration. This has now been fixed. Can you please push an empty commit? This will make the CI checks run again and hopefully fix them.

[Kouteki]

Can you please push an empty commit? This will make the CI checks run again and hopefully fix them.

We're having issues with Codecov, ignore failed Codecov tests for now.