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

[MikaelVallenet]

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:

• ValidateMemPackageAny() enforces the check for MPUserAll packages (on-chain deployment paths: keeper
  AddPackage and genesis loading)
• gno lint warns about mismatches before deployment
• Filetests validate name-path matching via ValidatePkgNameMatchesPath in the filetest runner
• Filetest package name is now derived from file content (MustPackageNameFromFileBody) instead of from the path

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 related to gnoweb must be reviewed by its codeowners

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 related to gnoweb must be reviewed by its codeowners
🟢 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 related to gnoweb must be reviewed by its codeowners

If

🟢 Condition met
└── 🟢 And
    ├── 🟢 The base branch matches this pattern: ^master$
    └── 🟢 A changed file matches this pattern: ^gno.land/pkg/gnoweb/ (filename: gno.land/pkg/gnoweb/handler_http.go)

Then

🔴 Requirement not satisfied
└── 🔴 Or
    ├── 🔴 Or
    │   ├── 🔴 And
    │   │   ├── 🔴 Pull request author is user: alexiscolin
    │   │   └── 🔴 This user reviewed pull request: gfanton (with state "APPROVED")
    │   └── 🔴 And
    │       ├── 🔴 Pull request author is user: gfanton
    │       └── 🔴 This user reviewed pull request: alexiscolin (with state "APPROVED")
    └── 🔴 And
        ├── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is user: alexiscolin)
        ├── 🟢 Not (🔴 Pull request author is user: gfanton)
        └── 🔴 Or
            ├── 🔴 This user reviewed pull request: alexiscolin (with state "APPROVED")
            └── 🔴 This user reviewed pull request: gfanton (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 satisfied
└── 🟢 If
    ├── 🟢 Condition
    │   └── 🟢 Or
    │       ├── 🟢 User jefft0 already reviewed PR 5048 with state APPROVED
    │       ├── 🟢 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🟢 Then
        └── 🟢 Not (🔴 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending)

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 86.84211% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
gnovm/pkg/gnolang/mempackage.go	78.26%	3 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[davd-gzl]

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

[davd-gzl]

LGTM

[jefft0]

This PR fixes a "Next after mainnet beta" milestone issue. The docs are updated. The breaking change is documented. Includes tests and changes to existing package names to comply. CI checks pass. Ready for core devs to review and decide if and when the breaking changes is wanted.

[thehowl]

Generally LGTM.

[MikaelVallenet]

with latest changes, we could say that v0 are not audited / safe version and display warning for end users when using v0 realms or using a realm that depends on v0 realms objects or import