feat(ufmt): enhance printf functionnalities by adding flags

[paulogarithm]

Fixes

• ufmt/printf
  • added flag parsing, such as %.number, %#, %0, and others
  • cf 5d71b3a
  • new features has been tested using unit tests (see tests)

[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: paulogarithm/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
    │       ├── 🟢 User notJoon already reviewed PR 4136 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]

Can you split it into two?

[paulogarithm]

@thehowl done

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

:loudspeaker: Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[paulogarithm]

@notJoon i'm done fixing everything 👍 i just need your opinion on something (concerning backward pointer checking usefullness)

[paulogarithm]

tell me if i need to add anything else !

[notJoon]

@paulogarithm

Hmm... When using ufmt (especially, using Sprintf function), gas consumption increases causing "out of gas" errors and test failures. The other CI failure issues will likely be resolved with a branch update, but this one seems to require code modifications.

I'll check this problem today. If it's okay, may I modify this code together with you?

[paulogarithm]

totally fine for me, @notJoon ! but maybe it's because of the maps, so when you'll test, can you try putting the maps in the scope like i did, even if it's more greedy on memory ?

[notJoon]

can you try putting the maps in the scope like i did, even if it's more greedy on memory ?

I'm testing by directly checking the gas consumption with txtar. It seems rather than map usage, we also need to improve parts related to memory allocation within the ufmt package overall.

[notJoon]

@paulogarithm I couldn't push directly to this PR #4174, so I created a separate PR. Please check it and feel free to cherry-pick if needed. thank you 👍

[thehowl]

@paulogarithm did you have a chance to read guilhem's feedback?

[paulogarithm]

I'm so sorry i was putting all my efforts on Flamegraphs & EVM, I did not made any updates, but I'm back !

• @thehowl yep i'm reading each reviews
• @gfanton i will add the new tests + improve the Sprintf doc + check your reviews
• @notJoon ill cherry pick mostly everything because from what i seen, it seems that everything improves ufmt in a better way !

[paulogarithm]

alright so i added the tests from the real printf (the ones that @gfanton shared here) + i cherry picked (more like manually copy-pasted and put notJoon as co authored) the @notJoon 's code parts for optimization. the only things that are mostly left on the tests are the G flag

[paulogarithm]

@gfanton @thehowl sorry for the late reply, tell me if everything lgty guys

[thehowl]

See-also https://github.com/gnolang/gno/pull/4174#pullrequestreview-3115281780

[thehowl]

Closing this issue; Pol won't be working on it as he is no longer on the student contributor programme and doesn't have time to continue working on this </3

@notJoon, I think you can pick it up and finish it :)