Fix #560 & #561

[st0012]

This closes #560 and closes #561

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #567 into master will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 0%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #567      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.67%   82.62%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          53       53              
  Lines        6995     6999       +4     
==========================================
  Hits         5783     5783              
- Misses        967      969       +2     
- Partials      245      247       +2

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
compiler/bytecode/statement_generation.go	84.12% <0%> (-1.36%)	⬇️
compiler/bytecode/expression_generation.go	72.06% <0%> (-0.82%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1cdf3e8...567df5a. Read the comment docs.

[hachi8833]

#561 still needs fix. The following is an evaluation test for that:

func TestEmptyCodeEvaluation(t *testing.T) {
	tests := []struct {
		input    string
		expected string
	}{
		{``, ""},
		{`
`, ""},
	}

	for i, tt := range tests {
		v := initTestVM()
		evaluated := v.testEval(t, tt.input, getFilename())

		if isError(evaluated) {
			t.Fatalf("got Error: %s", evaluated.(*Error).message)
		}

		verifyExpected(t, i, evaluated, tt.expected)
		v.checkCFP(t, i, 0)
		v.checkSP(t, i, 1)
	}
}

[hachi8833]

#561 still needs fix

[st0012]

@hachi8833 I've tried that. We can't test that in current testing approach, because the parser will have different mode and behavior under test environment. And the issue you mentioned is a test-mode-only issue.

[hachi8833]

Got it

[st0012]

@hachi8833 Do you approve this PR?