feat(gnovm/lint): enforce last elem of pkg path to match pkg name

[MikaelVallenet]

fix #1571

Description

Closes #1571

Enforces that package names must match the last element of their import path, following Go conventions.

BREAKING CHANGE: Packages with names that don't match their path's last element will be rejected on deployment. Existing on-chain packages are unaffected, but new deployments must comply. For example, deploying a package foo at path gno.land/r/demo/bar will now fail.

Changes

Core validation (gnovm/pkg/gnolang/mempackage.go):

• LastPathElement() - extracts the last meaningful path element, skipping version suffixes
• ValidatePkgNameMatchesPath() - ensures package name matches path element
• Version suffixes (v1, v2, v3, ...) are recognized and skipped when matching

Note on v1: Go module convention states that v1 should not appear in import paths. However, i allowed v1 as a version suffix for backwards compatibility with existing packages like gno.land/r/gnoland/boards2/v1 and
gno.land/r/sys/users/v1.

Enforcement:

• gno lint warns about mismatches before deployment
• keeper.AddPackage() blocks deployment of non-compliant packages

It's not at mempackage since some pkg does not follow this rules like filetests so i decided to put it at keeper and linter layer instead at mem pkg validation.

Example package renames:

• gnoblog → blog
• gnopages → pages
• foo20 → grc20factory
• eval → math_eval
• todolistrealm → todolist
• emitevents → events
• image_embed → img_embed
• tests → vm (r/tests/vm)
• mapdelete → map_delete
• nir1218_evaluation_proposal → moved to subfolder /evaluation

Examples

Path	Package	Valid
gno.land/r/demo/counter	counter	✅
gno.land/r/demo/counter	foo	❌
gno.land/r/demo/foo/v2	foo	✅
gno.land/r/demo/foo/v1	foo	✅

Contributors' checklist

• Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
• Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is self-explanatory
• Updated the official documentation or not needed
• No breaking changes were made, or a BREAKING CHANGE: xxx message was included in the description
• Added references to related issues and PRs
• Provided any useful hints for running manual tests

[Gno2D2]

🛠 PR Checks Summary

🔴 Changes to 'docs' folder must be reviewed/authored by at least one devrel and one tech-staff
🔴 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)

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)
🔴 Changes to 'docs' folder must be reviewed/authored by at least one devrel and one tech-staff
🔴 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: MikaelVallenet/gno)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

Changes to 'docs' folder must be reviewed/authored by at least one devrel and one tech-staff

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 A changed file matches this pattern: ^docs/ (filename: docs/builders/deploy-packages.md)

Then

🔴 Requirement not satisfied
└── 🔴 And
    ├── 🔴 Or
    │   ├── 🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: tech-staff
    │   └── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request(with state "APPROVED")
    └── 🔴 Or
        ├── 🔴 Pull request author is a member of the team: devrels
        └── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team devrels reviewed pull request(with state "APPROVED")

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 one of these user(s) reviewed the pull request: [jefft0 notJoon omarsy MikaelVallenet] (with state "APPROVED")
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🔴 Else
        └── 🔴 And
            ├── 🟢 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending
            └── 🔴 On no 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]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 86.66667% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
gno.land/pkg/sdk/vm/keeper.go	0.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
gnovm/pkg/gnolang/mempackage.go	88.88%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[jefft0]

The Go language spec says:

• For a final path element of the form /vN where N looks numeric (ASCII digits and dots), N must not begin with a leading zero, must not be /v1

Go doesn't want you to use a package ending in /v1 . But we do this in Gno. Should Gno also forbid /v1?

[notJoon]

Currently there is no alternative way to express the contract version other than this, I think it seems best to handle it as a special case as described in issue #1571

[MikaelVallenet]

also v1 is widely used in the existing packages, i would like an input from core team to tell me whether i should do it or not.

[Davphla]

Note: If this is merged we should create an issue on the LSP of Gno about this new feature.

[Davphla]

LGTM