fix: Missing Type Check for Built-in Function Arguments (len, cap) Causes Runtime Panic #3454

[KemalBekir]

Invalid arguments provided to builtin functions len,cap and make would compile successfully but it was triggering a runtime panic when executed.

fixes #3454

[Gno2D2]

🛠 PR Checks Summary

All Automated Checks passed. ✅

Manual Checks (for Reviewers):

• IGNORE the bot requirements for this PR (force green CI check)
• The pull request description provides enough details

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:

• Report a bug with the bot.
• View the bot’s configuration file.

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: KemalBekir/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 satisfied
└── 🟢 If
    ├── 🟢 Condition
    │   └── 🟢 Or
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the organization reviewed the pull request (with state "APPROVED")
    │       ├── 🟢 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🟢 Then
        └── 🟢 And
            ├── 🟢 Not (🔴 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending)
            └── 🟢 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed 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

The pull request description provides enough details

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: core-contributors)
    └── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is user: dependabot[bot])

Can be checked by

• team core-contributors

[thehowl]

a first sanity review

[petar-dambovaliev]

Looks okay. Just fix the requested changes.

[ltzmaxwell]

a first round review.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 70.86614% with 37 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
gnovm/pkg/gnolang/type_check.go	68.37%	20 Missing and 17 partials ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[ltzmaxwell]

thanks for your work! left some comments please check. Additionally, there's a lack of testing for the new added logic. Please ensure sufficient test coverage.

[KemalBekir]

Do you want me to adjust the errors format to match the type check error?

[jaekwon]

As a naming convention, suggest getCallFuncName() Name (returns Name).

[jaekwon]

Please check this comment: #3454 (comment).
And please rebase on master and update testfiles with --update-golden-tests. Thank you!

[jaekwon]

please check comments on files and main thread and rerequest review

[thehowl]

Please make sure the CI is passing before requesting a second review