feat: improve builder

[ascandone]

No description provided.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: c6e91a66-d0bc-41e0-b0a7-831e48790a40

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 08b4640 and 17a2a11.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• builder/builder.go

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• builder/builder.go

---

Walkthrough

Adds BuildProgramWithFeatureFlags to builder/builder.go: a helper checkIsFlagValid enforces that flag strings contain only lowercase letters and -, and the exported function prepends a #![feature(...)] header to the BuildProgram output. A new test TestSimpleSendWithFlag validates the generated script with two feature flags.

Changes

Feature Flag Builder

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Flag validation and BuildProgramWithFeatureFlags implementation builder/builder.go	Removes a stale TODO comment. Adds checkIsFlagValid (returns false for empty or non-[a-z-] strings) and exported BuildProgramWithFeatureFlags, which panics on invalid flags, formats the comma-separated feature list, and prepends #![feature(...)] to the script returned by BuildProgram.
TestSimpleSendWithFlag test builder/builder_test.go	Adds a test that builds a StmtSend via BuildProgramWithFeatureFlags with my-flag and another-flag, and asserts the output script against an inline snapshot containing the feature header and expected vars/send body.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

Poem

🐇 Hippity-hop, a flag goes in,
With lowercase letters and dashes within.
#![feature] sits atop the script,
Invalid names get promptly clipped!
The rabbit stamps the snapshot — approved! ✅

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 3

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 2 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 28.57% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title is related to the builder changes but too generic to convey the main update clearly.	Use a more specific title that mentions feature-flag support or program header generation in the builder.
Description check	❓ Inconclusive	No pull request description was provided, so there is nothing to assess beyond a missing summary.	Add a brief description of the builder feature-flag support and the new test coverage.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch feat/improve-builder

Warning

There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure.

🔧 golangci-lint (2.12.2)

level=error msg="[linters_context] typechecking error: pattern ./...: directory prefix . does not contain main module or its selected dependencies"

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 71.42857% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 68.48%. Comparing base (9ca635b) to head (17a2a11).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
builder/builder.go	71.42%	3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #165      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.52%   68.48%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          56       56              
  Lines        5417     5438      +21     
==========================================
+ Hits         3712     3724      +12     
- Misses       1494     1498       +4     
- Partials      211      216       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[NumaryBot]

✅ Approve — automated review

The new builder API emits syntactically valid feature declarations and preserves existing BuildProgram behavior. I did not find any discrete regressions introduced by the patch.

No findings.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

builder/builder_test.go (1)

53-68: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win

Add a dedicated test for invalid-flag panic behavior.

This PR introduces a strict panic contract for invalid flags, but current coverage only asserts the happy path. Add a focused test to lock panic behavior and prevent silent contract drift.

Example test addition

+func TestBuildProgramWithFeatureFlagsInvalidFlagPanics(t *testing.T) {
+	stmt := builder.StmtSend(
+		builder.ExprMonetary(
+			builder.ExprAsset("USD/2"),
+			builder.ExprNumberBigInt(big.NewInt(1)),
+		),
+		builder.SrcAccount(builder.ExprAccount("src")),
+		builder.DestAccount(builder.ExprAccount("dest")),
+	)
+
+	defer func() {
+		if recover() == nil {
+			t.Fatalf("expected panic for invalid feature flag")
+		}
+	}()
+
+	builder.BuildProgramWithFeatureFlags([]string{"Invalid-Flag"}, stmt)
+}

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@builder/builder_test.go` around lines 53 - 68, The current test coverage only
validates the happy path where valid feature flags are passed to the
BuildProgramWithFeatureFlags function. Add a new test function that specifically
tests the panic behavior when an invalid or unsupported flag is provided to
BuildProgramWithFeatureFlags. The test should verify that the function panics
with an appropriate error message when given an invalid flag, ensuring the
strict panic contract is properly covered and preventing regression of the panic
behavior contract.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Inline comments:
In `@builder/builder.go`:
- Around line 175-189: The BuildProgramWithFeatureFlags function validates
featureFlags after calling BuildProgram on the statements, which allows side
effects from BuildProgram to execute even when invalid flags would cause a
panic. Move the flag validation loop that calls checkIsFlagValid before the call
to BuildProgram to ensure invalid flags are caught immediately and prevent any
statement execution or side effects from occurring before the panic.

---

Nitpick comments:
In `@builder/builder_test.go`:
- Around line 53-68: The current test coverage only validates the happy path
where valid feature flags are passed to the BuildProgramWithFeatureFlags
function. Add a new test function that specifically tests the panic behavior
when an invalid or unsupported flag is provided to BuildProgramWithFeatureFlags.
The test should verify that the function panics with an appropriate error
message when given an invalid flag, ensuring the strict panic contract is
properly covered and preventing regression of the panic behavior contract.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 0137bf64-5872-438a-8436-36decab91be4

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9ca635b and 08b4640.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• builder/builder.go
• builder/builder_test.go

[paul-nicolas]

LGTM

[NumaryBot]

✅ Approve — automated review

The new builder helper appears to generate syntactically valid feature declarations for the supported flag format, and existing builder behavior is unchanged.

No findings.