fix(gnovm): fix slice value conversion issues

[ltzmaxwell]

address: #4337, #4344.

[Gno2D2]

🛠 PR Checks Summary

All Automated Checks passed. ✅

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)

☑️ 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: ltzmaxwell/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this 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[bot]]

Codecov Report

:x: Patch coverage is 95.45455% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
gnovm/pkg/gnolang/values_conversions.go	92.59%	2 Missing :warning:

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

[thehowl]

We can add this, though we should consider that IIRC this feature was added after go 1.18, so I would say it's somewhat less of a priority, like min / max functions or generics.

[ltzmaxwell]

We can add this, though we should consider that IIRC this feature was added after go 1.18, so I would say it's somewhat less of a priority, like min / max functions or generics.

yeah exactly, we can lower the priority.

[thehowl]

Let's close as unsupported for now, as we target support mostly for Go 1.17 (with loopvars being one exception post-1.18 which I think would make sense even at present).