Add regression test for equivalent bigint map keys

[jovfer]

What does this PR do?

Draft attempt to fix an issue, generated by Codex

What issues does this PR fix or reference?

#1145

Is it tested? How?

Added a couple of tests for the particular scenario.
should not report big integer key duplication error is failing without the patch

[datho7561]

This seems to fix the issue. Is there anything missing from this PR, or is it ready to go? Do you mind rebasing it?

[jovfer]

@datho7561 thanks for checking the issue and the PR. The main reason I marked it as draft is my confidence level in the fix.

I managed to isolate the issue, cover it with a test, and generate a hotfix with AI, but honestly I’m not yet confident enough to say whether this workaround is good enough, or whether the better path would be fixing the underlying library and adding a patch on top.

Any suggestions on additional tests, maybe at a higher level, that we could add to validate correctness better?

And sure, I’ll rebase the patch later this week and we can at least verify that it still passes the existing tests.

[datho7561]

I’ll rebase the patch later this week

Thanks!

I managed to isolate the issue, cover it with a test, and generate a hotfix with AI, but honestly I’m not yet confident enough to say whether this workaround is good enough, or whether the better path would be fixing the underlying library and adding a patch on top.

Thinking about it more, there's many places where we're checking the type of the value of a node. One thing to test against might be if JSON schema-based validation of large integers still works properly.