Merge rc into feat/supernova async exec 2026.04.02

[sstanculeanu]

Reasoning behind the pull request

Proposed changes

Testing procedure

Pre-requisites

Based on the Contributing Guidelines the PR author and the reviewers must check the following requirements are met:

• was the PR targeted to the correct branch?
• if this is a larger feature that probably needs more than one PR, is there a feat branch created?
• if this is a feat branch merging, do all satellite projects have a proper tag inside go.mod?

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR adds validation for duplicated mini-block (and shard-data) hashes to prevent blocks/headers containing repeated hashes where uniqueness is expected, and introduces a dedicated error for this condition.

Changes:

• Added process.ErrDuplicatedHashInBlock error.
• Added duplicate-hash detection in intercepted meta-header integrity checks and in header/body correlation checks.
• Added/updated unit tests for duplicated hashes across shard processors and intercepted meta headers.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
process/errors.go	Introduces ErrDuplicatedHashInBlock used by new validation paths.
process/block/baseProcess.go	Adds duplicate-hash detection to header/body correlation logic.
process/block/shardblock_test.go	Adds tests asserting correlation fails on duplicated hashes.
process/block/interceptedBlocks/common.go	Adds shared helper + enforces uniqueness for shard-info and miniblock header hashes.
process/block/interceptedBlocks/common_test.go	Adds unit tests for duplicate-hash checks in intercepted-block utilities.
process/block/interceptedBlocks/interceptedMetaBlockHeader.go	Minor formatting change in integrity flow (no logic change).
process/block/interceptedBlocks/interceptedMetaBlockHeader_test.go	Adds tests ensuring duplicated miniblock header hashes are rejected.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

checkHeaderBodyCorrelationProposal builds mbHashesFromHdr by calling miniBlockHeaders[i].GetHash() before validating that the header handler is non-nil. If miniBlockHeaders contains a nil entry (there is already a unit test for this case), this will panic with a nil pointer dereference instead of returning ErrNilMiniBlockHeader. Consider validating miniBlockHeaders entries before building the map, or building the map inside the main loop after the nil check.

Suggested change

	for i := 0; i < len(miniBlockHeaders); i++ {
	for i := 0; i < len(miniBlockHeaders); i++ {
	if miniBlockHeaders[i] == nil {
	return process.ErrNilMiniBlockHeader
	}

[Copilot]

mbHashesFromHdr is only used for presence checks and deletions; the stored MiniBlockHeaderHandler value is never read. Using map[string]struct{} (or a boolean) would clarify intent and avoid keeping unused pointers in the map.

Suggested change

	mbHashesFromHdr := make(map[string]data.MiniBlockHeaderHandler, len(miniBlockHeaders))
	for i := 0; i < len(miniBlockHeaders); i++ {
	mbHashesFromHdr[string(miniBlockHeaders[i].GetHash())] = miniBlockHeaders[i]
	mbHashesFromHdr := make(map[string]struct{}, len(miniBlockHeaders))
	for i := 0; i < len(miniBlockHeaders); i++ {
	mbHashesFromHdr[string(miniBlockHeaders[i].GetHash())] = struct{}{}

[Copilot]

mbHashesFromHdr is only used as a set (membership + delete); the map value is never read. Consider changing this to map[string]struct{} to make the code’s intent clearer and reduce memory overhead.

Suggested change

	mbHashesFromHdr := make(map[string]data.MiniBlockHeaderHandler, len(miniBlockHeaders))
	for i := 0; i < len(miniBlockHeaders); i++ {
	mbHashesFromHdr[string(miniBlockHeaders[i].GetHash())] = miniBlockHeaders[i]
	mbHashesFromHdr := make(map[string]struct{}, len(miniBlockHeaders))
	for i := 0; i < len(miniBlockHeaders); i++ {
	mbHashesFromHdr[string(miniBlockHeaders[i].GetHash())] = struct{}{}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 77.58%. Comparing base (3f8d81a) to head (2dbcd45).
⚠️ Report is 14 commits behind head on feat/supernova-async-exec.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
process/block/baseProcess.go	83.33%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                    Coverage Diff                     @@
##           feat/supernova-async-exec    #7818   +/-   ##
==========================================================
  Coverage                      77.58%   77.58%           
==========================================================
  Files                            882      882           
  Lines                         123941   123987   +46     
==========================================================
+ Hits                           96155    96193   +38     
- Misses                         21416    21420    +4     
- Partials                        6370     6374    +4     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.