test(asset_scaling): pin getAssets prefix-match bug (failing)

[gfyrag]

Summary

Failing regression test demonstrating a pre-existing bug in
internal/interpreter/asset_scaling.go::getAssets. CI is intentionally
red on this branch — see the stacked fix PR below.

getAssets(balance, baseAsset) uses strings.HasPrefix(asset, baseAsset)
to gather scaled variants of an asset. The match is too loose:

Stored key	Should match USD?	Currently matches?
USD	yes	✅
USD/2	yes	✅
USDT	no	❌
USDT/2	no	❌
USD_RED (color-suffix-encoded)	no	❌
USD_RED/2	no	❌

Because the result map is keyed by precision scale only, an entry
like USD_RED/2 = 500 silently overwrites the true USD/2 = 2 value
in the scaling pool — corrupting any subsequent conversion. The result
is non-deterministic (last-write-wins on randomized map iteration), so
the failing test is structured as three deterministic sub-tests rather
than one composite assertion.

Stack

PR	What it does	Target
this PR (#141)	Adds the failing regression test	main
#140	Tightens getAssets to exact base + base/N match	this branch

Merging the fix flips the test green.

Test plan

• TestGetAssetsRejectsSpuriousPrefixMatches fails locally with
  sub-test failures for USDT and USD_RED prefix pollution.
• All other tests stay green.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This PR adds a targeted test case TestGetAssetsRejectsSpuriousPrefixMatches to internal/interpreter/asset_scaling_test.go that validates the getAssets function correctly matches asset base names exactly, including precision variants, while rejecting assets that merely share a string prefix.

Changes

Asset Prefix Matching Test

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Prefix matching validation test for getAssets internal/interpreter/asset_scaling_test.go	New test TestGetAssetsRejectsSpuriousPrefixMatches with multiple sub-tests verifies that getAssets accepts exact base names (USD) and precision variants (USD/2, USD/3) while rejecting prefix-only matches (USDT, USD_RED).

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

🐰 A test hops through the asset names with care,
Rejecting false prefixes in the pair,
Exact matches shine, precision in view,
USDT stays out—only USD is true! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 50.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The PR title accurately describes the primary change: adding a test that pins (documents) a prefix-match bug in getAssets, and the (failing) notation clearly indicates the test is intentionally failing.
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.
Description check	✅ Passed	The PR description clearly explains the bug in getAssets, provides a detailed table of matching behavior, and contextualizes the failing test as part of a stacked fix strategy.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ 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 test/asset-scaling-prefix-match-bug

---

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.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 67.00%. Comparing base (5cc059f) to head (ff49c47).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #141      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   66.96%   67.00%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          47       47              
  Lines        5068     5068              
==========================================
+ Hits         3394     3396       +2     
+ Misses       1477     1476       -1     
+ Partials      197      196       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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.