Skip to content

Conversation

@MikaelVallenet
Copy link
Member

fix #4026

80% work based on this PR: #4083
I let a message to ask to take over the PR & the PR was stale so i decided to update it.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the 📦 🤖 gnovm Issues or PRs gnovm related label Dec 5, 2025
@Gno2D2 Gno2D2 added the review/triage-pending PRs opened by external contributors that are waiting for the 1st review label Dec 5, 2025
@Gno2D2
Copy link
Collaborator

Gno2D2 commented Dec 5, 2025

🛠 PR Checks Summary

🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

Manual Checks (for Reviewers):
  • IGNORE the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)
Read More

🤖 This bot helps streamline PR reviews by verifying automated checks and providing guidance for contributors and reviewers.

✅ Automated Checks (for Contributors):

🟢 Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)
🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

☑️ Contributor Actions:
  1. Fix any issues flagged by automated checks.
  2. Follow the Contributor Checklist to ensure your PR is ready for review.
    • Add new tests, or document why they are unnecessary.
    • Provide clear examples/screenshots, if necessary.
    • Update documentation, if required.
    • Ensure no breaking changes, or include BREAKING CHANGE notes.
    • Link related issues/PRs, where applicable.
☑️ Reviewer Actions:
  1. Complete manual checks for the PR, including the guidelines and additional checks if applicable.
📚 Resources:
Debug
Automated Checks
Maintainers must be able to edit this pull request (more info)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 The pull request was created from a fork (head branch repo: MikaelVallenet/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: tech-staff)

Then

🔴 Requirement not satisfied
└── 🔴 If
    ├── 🔴 Condition
    │   └── 🔴 Or
    │       ├── 🔴 At least one of these user(s) reviewed the pull request: [jefft0 leohhhn n0izn0iz notJoon omarsy x1unix] (with state "APPROVED")
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🔴 Else
        └── 🔴 And
            ├── 🟢 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending
            └── 🔴 On no pull request

Manual Checks
**IGNORE** the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 On every pull request

Can be checked by

  • Any user with comment edit permission

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 5, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
gnovm/cmd/gno/lint.go 84.61% 3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!


// Invalid 'Render' function: wrong parameter (int instead of string)

func Render(input int) string {

This comment was marked as resolved.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i already have a test that try the number of parameter, i don't think its relevant to add this test.

}

switch {
case !isSingleString(s.Params()), !isSingleString(s.Results()):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I get why using a switch case, but since we only have one case I think a if would be more adapted

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

return nil
}

o := pkg.Scope().Lookup("Render")
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tests don't pass due to lint applying on every package (pure package + realm) instead of only realm.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

📦 🤖 gnovm Issues or PRs gnovm related review/triage-pending PRs opened by external contributors that are waiting for the 1st review

Projects

Status: No status

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

gno lint: check Render func signature.

3 participants