test: refactor kvpair, add tests

[wolkykim]

• simplify Less() and remove the unnecessary panic check
• add comments
• add tests

[waymobetta]

Hi @wolkykim, thanks for your contribution, the newly introduced comments and the tests that you've provided. The team will review this asap.

If you haven't yet, check out the Game of Realms to understand more about the contribution campaign we are running and be sure to register in order to be eligible for rewards.

[wolkykim]

@waymobetta Hi, that's great to know. What is Gno.land Address in the registration?

[waymobetta]

What is Gno.land Address in the registration?

Example: g1de21kk9jqjkscd0hau14r8e4n52jqze231zuv3
^ Gno.land addresses include the prefix: g1

This is the public address of the wallet you've created. We collect this and associate it with your Github username in order to distribute Game of Realms rewards based on your contributions to the various Gno repositories.

[piux2]

@wolkykim Thank you for the contribution. The testing cases and correction on comments are good!

However we are in favor of switch then if-else for Less() implementation due to following reasons.

• Readability: switch provides a clear layout for each outcome of bytes.Compare.
• Performance: Compilers optimize switch statements more efficiently, when the cases are dense integer values.( -1, 0, 1)
• Explicitness: The default case in the switch acts as a safeguard against unexpected outcomes, making error handling more explicit.

[wolkykim]

@piux2 Hi, I'm also fine with using switch in general. Just that in this particular case it has a default that will never be reached, and then this line doesn't apply the same practice. Just so you know where this started.
https://github.com/gnolang/gno/pull/1057/files#diff-44b3edb2e2fef129ab0359644b4289884ffc97d958a64d2052a1c7269ac8d32bL26

Would you like this PR closed or a revised commit that rolls back the Less() to the original logic?
Let me know what you think. Thanks for the feedback.

[piux2]

@piux2 Hi, I'm also fine with using switch in general. Just that in this particular case it has a default that will never be reached, and then this line doesn't apply the same practice. Just so you know where this started. https://github.com/gnolang/gno/pull/1057/files#diff-44b3edb2e2fef129ab0359644b4289884ffc97d958a64d2052a1c7269ac8d32bL26

Thank for pointing it out. It's good practice to include a default case even if it seems unreachable. This serves as a safety precaution. The second comparison directly returns results to the caller, which is a different scenario than the first comparison in the switch

Would you like this PR closed or a revised commit that rolls back the Less() to the original logic? Let me know what you think. Thanks for the feedback.

@wolkykim can you roll back the Less() to the original implementation. Let's keep the test and comments. Again, thank you for the contribution!

[wolkykim]

@piux2 I've updated it. The original Less() logics are back to life!