Skip to content

Conversation

@Davphla
Copy link
Contributor

@Davphla Davphla commented Nov 17, 2025

Fix: #4786

This PR simplify the implementation of the MapList linked list of the gnovm.
There's no semantic change as it is explicit in the original issue, it only simplify the code by expliciting the two cases:

  • Empty list -> Set tail and head with item
  • Append -> Set tail->next with item

@github-actions github-actions bot added the 📦 🤖 gnovm Issues or PRs gnovm related label Nov 17, 2025
@Gno2D2 Gno2D2 added the review/triage-pending PRs opened by external contributors that are waiting for the 1st review label Nov 17, 2025
@Gno2D2
Copy link
Collaborator

Gno2D2 commented Nov 17, 2025

🛠 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:
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: Davphla/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 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
    └── 🟢 Then
        └── 🟢 Not (🔴 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending)

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

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 17, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

@Gno2D2 Gno2D2 removed the review/triage-pending PRs opened by external contributors that are waiting for the 1st review label Nov 17, 2025
@Davphla Davphla moved this from NEED PEER REVIEW (INTERNAL) to Waiting for core Review in FlashorgSprint: Gnocore Minicrew 🥷 Nov 21, 2025
@Kouteki Kouteki moved this from Triage to In Review in 🧙‍♂️gno.land core team Nov 24, 2025
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

Projects

Status: In Progress
Status: In Review

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Inconsistency in the single-linked list implementation

3 participants