Convert references based on borrow type

[SupunS]

Work towards #3081

Description

In Cadence v0.42, the valueType (which is a ReferenceStaticType) included not only the referenced-type, but also the "borrowed type" of the value. So if the borrowed-type/referenced-type was different than the expected-type, then the conversion happened. This was added in https://github.com/dapperlabs/cadence-internal/pull/201.

However, in Cadence 1.0, the the ReferenceStaticType (and therefore valueType) no longer contains the borrow-type. So even if the borrowed-type was different, the existing check would see the valueType and the expectedType as equal, and the conversion wouldn't happen. So this change here is to also consider the borrowed-type, just like it used to, but now the borrow-type has to be taken from the ReferenceValue, because ReferenceStaticType no longer has it.

The actual fix is #3213 (comment).

---

• Targeted PR against master branch
• Linked to Github issue with discussion and accepted design OR link to spec that describes this work
• Code follows the standards mentioned here
• Updated relevant documentation
• Re-reviewed Files changed in the Github PR explorer
• Added appropriate labels

[turbolent]

@SupunS Could you please add a description of what the PR does and why? I tried to have a look at the PR, but I don't quite see what the changes are and why they're needed (what the problem is). Thank you!

[SupunS]

@turbolent #3213 (comment) has a description on the change. I put it as a comment, because then it is easier to point to where the actual fix is. I'll copy this over to the description as well.

[SupunS]

Updated the description

[turbolent]

It somewhat makes sense to me what was done before and how it needs to be adjusted for Cadence 1.0 👍

The TODO/Skip is left because we still need to investigate why the test fails, but still want to unblock #3079 and get that in before?

[SupunS]

The TODO/Skip is left because we still need to investigate why the test fails, but still want to unblock #3079 and get that in before?

Yes. I already figured out the cause, but needed to figure out a solution. It probably needs some extra work, so don't want to block the remaining fixes until we figure that one out.