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

🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

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 not 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]

Can you split it into two?

[paulogarithm]

@thehowl done

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[notJoon]

I've left a few comments. I would appreciate if you could check them 👍

[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]

I've confirmed that all the requested changes have been reflected and all tests have passed.

It's a minor point related to policy, but the "resolve conversation" button should not be pressed until the reviewer has checked it. Please refer to this document for more details.

Anyway, except for this, everything else looks good.

remove: review/triage-pending flag

[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 ?