Time zone identifiers supported by ICU, but which aren't valid IANA
identifiers.
Implementations not supporting ECMA-402 are theoretically allowed to
support these identifiers, so the tests have to go into the "intl402"
directory.
These tests were incorrect, in checking for a RangeError when only one of
the era/eraYear fields were given. From CalendarResolveFields:
"The operation throws a *TypeError* exception if the properties of
_fields_ are internally inconsistent within the calendar or insufficient
to identify a unique instance of _type_ in the calendar."
Built-in non-ISO calendars require either monthCode/day, or month/day plus
some form of year specification.
This adds test coverage for each of the categories listed in
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/2664, of which some must
currently reside in the test/intl402/ folders.
We'll do this for now, then separately work on migrating all of the tests
that require a non-ISO8601 calendar but aren't dependent on it being any
particular calendar.
Note the monkeypatch of getPossibleInstantsFor in test/built-ins/Temporal/
TimeZone/prototype/getInstantFor/argument-builtin-calendar-no-array-
iteration.js.
Other than that, all the tests are basically identical.
This commit verifies that ISO strings with sub-minute offsets cannot
be parsed into time zone identifiers. This was a change introduced in
the recently-merged tc39/proposal-temporal#2607, but tests for this case
were missing from #3862 (the tests for that PR).
I noticed in codecov results on an unrelated PR that this case wasn't
being tested, so fixing that mistake now.
Edits Temporal tests to account for changes in
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2574.
This PR stops coercing non-string primitive inputs to strings
in Temporal methods, to avoid cases where numbers
are coerced to syntactically valid but often unexpected
string results.
* Add tests for the new PrepareTemporalFields behavior for all direct callers
See https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2570
* Add tests for the new PrepareTemporalFields behavior for indirect callers through ToTemporalDate
* Add tests for the new PrepareTemporalFields behavior for indirect callers through ToTemporalDateTime
* Add tests for the new PrepareTemporalFields behavior for indirect callers through ToTemporalZonedDateTime
* Add tests for the new PrepareTemporalFields behavior for indirect callers through ToTemporalYearMonth
* Add tests for the new PrepareTemporalFields behavior for indirect callers through ToTemporalMonthDay
* Add tests for the new PrepareTemporalFields behavior for indirect callers through ToRelativeTemporalObject
* Add tests for the new PrepareTemporalFields behavior for indirect callers through AddDurationToOrSubtractDurationFromPlainYearMonth
As per IETF review, an IXDTF string (ISO 8601 with annotations) is no
longer valid if it contains more than one u-ca annotation and at least one
of the annotations is marked critical.
Removes tests where such a string was assumed to be valid, and adds new
ones with a few variations on invalid strings.
I wrote a similar test for Temporal.ZonedDateTime.p.toLocaleString, so
while this was fresh I decided to do the same for the other toLocaleString
calendar mismatch tests that were in staging.
In https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2522 which reached
consensus at the March 2023 TC39 meeting, the functionality of
Temporal.ZonedDateTime.p.toLocaleString was changed substantially, to not
directly pass the ZonedDateTime to any Intl.DateTimeFormat methods. This
adds rewrites of all existing tests for toLocaleString, as well as a few
tests to verify that Intl.DateTimeFormat methods no longer support
Temporal.ZonedDateTime arguments.
As we are rewriting the tests anyway, this also ports all of the
Temporal.ZonedDateTime.p.toLocaleString tests that were in staging, to the
correct format for the main tree.
Previously, "nested" calendar property bags were unwrapped up to one
level. That is, this object:
{
calendar: {
// ...Temporal.Calendar methods
}
}
would not be considered to implement the Calendar protocol, but would have
its calendar property used instead, if it were passed to an API that
required a Calendar protocol object.
These nested property bags are no longer supported. Discussion:
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/2104#issuecomment-1409549753
Corresponding normative PR:
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2485
Previously, "nested" time zone property bags were unwrapped up to one
level. That is, this object:
{
timeZone: {
// ...Temporal.TimeZone methods
}
}
would not be considered to implement the TimeZone protocol, but would have
its timeZone property used instead, if it were passed to an API that
required a TimeZone protocol object.
These nested property bags are no longer supported. Discussion:
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/2104#issuecomment-1409549753
Corresponding normative PR:
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2485
This is the replacement of the old API with the new API, .timeZoneId and
.getTimeZone(). Semantics will be corrected in the following commit.
Normative PR: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2482
Compare semantics for custom calendars that _don't_ extend
Temporal.Calendar (and therefore don't have the internal slot) use the
value of the .id property, instead of calling toString().
Normative PR: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2482
In several tests involving custom calendars, we need to change the
implementation of dateFromFields/monthDayFromFields/yearMonthFromFields so
that the returned object gets the receiver as its calendar after chaining
up to the builtin implementation.
Normative PR: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2482
The Temporal polyfill had a math bug in Calendar.p.dateUntil where
non-ISO calendars would unexpectedly throw when calculating
the number of years between two dates where the year were different,
the month codes were different, but the months were the same because
the earlier date's month was after a leap month.
This test validates the fix to this bug.
The Temporal polyfill had an infinite loop for non-ISO calendars
when Calendar.p.dateUntil was called to calculate the duration
between two identical dates. This test validates that PT0S is returned
in that case.
Tests for the process of calculating the reference ISO day for
Temporal.PlainYearMonth and the reference ISO year for
Temporal.PlainMonthDay.
Normative PR: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2475
In https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2474, which achieved
consensus at the TC39 plenary meeting of 2023-01-31, the implementation-
defined steps for Temporal.Calendar.prototype.mergeFields had their
language tightened, to better specify what implementations must do.
This adds tests covering the new spec language, and moves one related test
out of staging.
For each entry point where a string calendar name is accepted, we should
have a test that ensures the calendar name is case-insensitive. These
tests existed but several were incomplete as they didn't take nested
properties into account, and several entry points were missing this test.
Fix a minor copy-paste issue with double semicolons.
As per the discussion in
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/2379#issuecomment-1248557100
and the PR https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2398, which is
to be presented for consensus to TC39 in the upcoming plenary meeting, UTC
offsets and the Z designator should be disallowed after any date-only
strings (YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY-MM, and MM-DD). They should only be allowed to
follow a time component. Z remains disallowed in any string being parsed
into a Plain type.
Annotations become allowed after any ISO string, even YYYY-MM and MM-DD
where they were previously disallowed.
To be presented for consensus in the November/December TC39 meeting. This
adds tests for a 'yearOfWeek' getter to PlainDate, PlainDateTime, and
ZonedDateTime, for use alongside 'weekOfYear', and tests for a
corresponding method to Calendar.
The tests are basically the existing tests of 'weekOfYear' adapted.
Temporal issue: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/2405
I discovered these tests had omitted some arguments to the PlainDateTime
constructor, leaving the calendar in the wrong position.
The tests were technically not incorrect, since the operation
ToIntegerThrowOnInfinity on the string "gregory" gives 0. But they could
spuriously pass if the implementation didn't do argument conversion
correctly, failed to throw on eraYear being ±Infinity, but subsequently
threw RangeError anyway because the calendars of the arguments didn't
match.
Normally, a plain object passed into an API that takes a Temporal.Calendar
has its 'calendar' property checked (observably) with a Has operation
followed by a Get operation if the property is present. In the normative
change https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2392 which reached
consensus at the September 2022 TC39 meeting, this was changed so that
this check is skipped for objects which have the Temporal.Calendar
internal slots.
This adds tests to all entry points that pass a user-supplied object to
ToTemporalCalendar, with a "poisoned" calendar object which has the
correct internal slots but a 'calendar' accessor property whose getter
throws. A correct implementation should not cause this getter to throw.
In these tests, we should make a distinction in the name for clarity. It's
testing a time zone passed as a property in a property bag (either as an
argument, or as a relativeTo option), so name it accordingly as we do with
other tests in the same folder.
See https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2316 which eliminated
an observable call to Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]() in the case where
a calendar's 'fields' property was undefined.
The best way I've thought of to test this is to monkeypatch the
Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]() method to make it throw. In some cases,
where we are actually expected to iterate the return value from a
Temporal.TimeZone's getPossibleInstantsFor() method, we have to provide a
custom method for that as well, that returns a non-Array iterable so we
don't call the patched Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]().
This normative change reached consensus at the July 2022 TC39 plenary
meeting.
Aditi
André Bargull
Philip Chimento
Justin Grant
Guillaume Emont
José Julián Espina
Richard Gibson