Fix int64 minimum value handling in tests for cross-architecture compatibility

[ccoVeille]

The bug arises from the use of generic integer types (int) in test cases involving large numerical values that exceed the range of a 32-bit integer.

In Go, the size of the int type depends on the platform, this behavior causes inconsistencies when handling large integers, such as -9223372036854775808 and 9007199254740993.

On 32-bit systems, these values cannot be represented correctly as int, leading to potential overflow or truncation errors. By explicitly using the int64 type in the affected test cases, the code ensures proper handling and representation of large integers across all platforms, avoiding platform-specific bugs and improving the reliability of the tests.
Reproduce

Run tests setting GOARCH to 386.

GOARCH=386 GOOS=linux go test -vet=off -v

Changes:

Switched expected values from map[string]interface{} to map[string]int64
to ensure type consistency and avoid type mismatch failures in DeepEquals.
Ensured literal -9223372036854775808 is treated safely as an int64 to
prevent compile-time constant overflow on 32-bit platforms.
Updated Marshal and Unmarshal tests to explicitly use int64 when working
with large integer constants that exceed int32 range.

These changes address potential issues with integer overflow and ensure compatibility across platforms with differing integer size representations.

This PR applies kubernetes-sigs/yaml#120 to from https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/yaml to yaml/go-yaml

This bug was identified and fixed by @arthurbdiniz

Fixes #128

• tests don't pass of a i386 arch #128

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR fixes cross-architecture compatibility issues in Go YAML tests by addressing integer type handling for large values that exceed 32-bit integer ranges. The changes ensure tests work correctly on both 32-bit and 64-bit platforms by explicitly using int64 types for large integer constants.

• Switched test expectations from map[string]any and map[string]int to map[string]int64 for large integer values
• Enhanced CI/CD pipeline to test across multiple architectures including 32-bit systems
• Added proper handling for race detection testing based on architecture constraints

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
decode_test.go	Updated test expectations to use int64 for large integer constants to prevent overflow on 32-bit systems
.github/workflows/go.yaml	Expanded CI matrix to test multiple OS/architecture combinations and handle 32-bit specific constraints

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[dims]

/assign @liggitt

[ingydotnet]

@ccoVeille How are you feeling on this PR?

[ccoVeille]

@ccoVeille How are you feeling on this PR?

For me this PR should be merged, code is fine now.

I wish I have a few approvals, but it could be merged as this, I think.

[liggitt]

changes lgtm, I'd suggest squashing commits

[stefanprodan]

LGTM

[ingydotnet]

@ccoVeille the current changes to .github/workflows/go.yaml feel like they don't belong here. Is the branch out of sync?

[ccoVeille]

@ccoVeille the current changes to .github/workflows/go.yaml feel like they don't belong here. Is the branch out of sync?

Could you please spot a line of the file that seems out of the PR scope ?

The changes I'm introducing are about testing all architectures (os, CPU and 32/64bits) in the unit tests. Something that was missing and caused the issues to be undetected.

So I'm fixing the unit tests. Make sure the issues cannot happen again.

Maybe I introduced a change that shouldn't be there. Please help to spot the issue if there are any

[ingydotnet]

@liggitt @stefanprodan

I got this older PR resolved and working again with the current code. Can you give it a quick review, please?

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[ingydotnet]

@ccoVeille you might want to look it over as well.

[ccoVeille]

I'm good with the PR.

[ingydotnet]

I'm good with the PR.

Thanks for checking. Given that I'm going to go ahead and merge it.