Fix #871: Fix instruction names for PyEval.CAST_TYPE

[dolamroth]

Fix #871

[haeter525]

Hi @dolamroth, thanks for the patch!

It appears we’ve had this instruction implementation wrong since the very beginning. Thank you for catching this and providing a fix!

Since there are existing unit tests covering CAST_TYPE instruction parsing in tests/evaluator/test_pyeval.py, could you kindly help update the following tests to reflect these changes?

• test_type_casting_without_wide_type
• test_type_casting_with_wide_type_to_simple_type
• test_type_casting_with_simple_type_to_wide_type

[dolamroth]

Yes, I didn't notice the tests and your comment before, I'll update tests shortly.

[dolamroth]

Done, but the tests are failing. I'm not sure if that's due to my changes or not. @haeter525, could you take a look, please?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.31%. Comparing base (05e7ffa) to head (bff61aa).
⚠️ Report is 16 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #872      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.27%   81.31%   -0.96%     
==========================================
  Files          80       80              
  Lines        6844     6948     +104     
==========================================
+ Hits         5631     5650      +19     
- Misses       1213     1298      +85     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	81.31% <100.00%> (-0.96%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[haeter525]

Hi @dolamroth. Your changes look great!

The test failed for two reasons, but neither was caused by your changes:

• One was a test baseline issue. We recently introduced new rules to the built-in ruleset but didn't update the test to reflect that. (Now fixed in #888.)
• The other is a pre-existing bug that your fix helped uncover. I've opened #889 to track it.

Your change is good to go. I'll apply a fix to your branch to get the tests to pass, then merge the PR.
Thank you for the patch! :D