fix: range over int vs loop+increment

[wolf31o2]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Refactor
  • Updated internal loop constructs across core processing modules to use simplified iteration patterns.

Note: These changes appear to affect compilation and require verification before deployment.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Three files in the internal/handshake package have their numeric for-loops replaced with range-based for-loops. Specifically:

• block.go: Iterator over txCount changed from for i := uint64(0); i < txCount; i++ to for range txCount
• covenant.go: Iterator over itemCount changed from for i := uint64(0); i < itemCount; i++ to for range itemCount
• transaction.go: Multiple iterators over inCount, outCount, and witnessCount similarly converted to range-based syntax

The loop bodies and decoding operations remain functionally identical.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~45 minutes

Areas requiring extra attention:

• Critical compilation issue: The changes apply for range over numeric values (uint64 types). Standard Go syntax does not permit this operation on numeric literals or variables—these changes would produce compilation errors across all three files.
• Pattern consistency: The same problematic pattern is applied across multiple files and contexts (block handling, covenant decoding, transaction input/output/witness decoding), suggesting a systematic refactor rather than isolated edits.
• Go version compatibility: Verify whether these changes target Go 1.22+ (which introduced range over integers as for i := range n), or if they represent an incomplete refactor.
• Impact scope: Changes affect core handshake decoding logic in multiple transaction and block processing paths.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	⚠️ Warning	The title references 'range over int' which directly contradicts the actual changes: the PR replaces traditional for-loops with invalid range-based loops over numeric types, introducing compilation errors rather than fixing them.	The changes appear to introduce bugs by using invalid Go syntax (range over numeric values). Either revert these changes or update the title to accurately describe what the PR does.

✅ Passed checks (1 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/range-over-int

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4e49c68 and bb775b2.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• internal/handshake/block.go (1 hunks)
• internal/handshake/covenant.go (1 hunks)
• internal/handshake/transaction.go (4 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Analyze (go)

🔇 Additional comments (3)

internal/handshake/covenant.go (1)

50-60: Switch to range-over-int looks good. This keeps the decode loop concise without changing behavior, and the Go 1.22+ syntax is fine here because the project is already building with Go 1.24. (darekstopka.dev)

internal/handshake/block.go (1)

45-52: Range form is a clean drop-in replacement. Using for range txCount eliminates the manual counter while preserving the same iteration semantics, and it is supported by the Go 1.24 toolchain we’re already using. (darekstopka.dev)

internal/handshake/transaction.go (1)

56-154: Range-over-int loops read well and remain correct. The new loops still allocate/append the expected counts and the witness loop’s index binding keeps working because the iteration variable now comes directly from inCount. Supported in our Go 1.24 builds, so no portability concerns. (darekstopka.dev)

---

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 and usage tips.}