fix(gnovm): skip closure frames in AssertOriginCall origin check

[notJoon]

Description

fixes #3918

Fixes an "invalid non-origin call" panic occurs when runtime.AssertOriginCall() is invoked through an anonymous(closure) function.

The previous isOriginCall determined whether a call was an origin call by comparing the number of frames against a hardcoded constant. Closures add a frame upon invocation, but they should not be semantically treated as a separate method call.

Although FuncValue.IsClosure clearly distinguish between func lits and func decls, isOriginCall did not utilize this and instead compared only the total number of frames.

gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang/values.go

Line 486 in c59fc2e

IsClosure bool // is a func lit expr closure (not decl)

I believe this was the root cause of the issue, so I updated all instance of isOriginCall to determine origin call status based on the frame count excluding closure frames.

Changes

• Added Machine.NumNonClosureFrames() to count only non-closure frame calls
• Added file tests reproducing this issue (std13.gno, std14.gno)

[Gno2D2]

🛠 PR Checks Summary

🔴 Pending initial approval by a review team member, or review from tech-staff

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)
🔴 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: notJoon/gno-core)

Then

🟢 Requirement satisfied
└── 🟢 Maintainer can modify this pull request

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 not satisfied
└── 🔴 If
    ├── 🔴 Condition
    │   └── 🔴 Or
    │       ├── 🔴 At least one of these user(s) reviewed the pull request: [davd-gzl jefft0 notJoon omarsy MikaelVallenet] (with state "APPROVED")
    │       ├── 🔴 At least 1 user(s) of the team tech-staff reviewed pull request
    │       └── 🔴 This pull request is a draft
    └── 🔴 Else
        └── 🔴 And
            ├── 🟢 This label is applied to pull request: review/triage-pending
            └── 🔴 On no pull request

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 64.28571% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
gnovm/stdlibs/chain/runtime/native.go	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...ovm/tests/stdlibs/chain/runtime/testing_runtime.go	50.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!