The `arrayContains` function has a number of deficiencies which make it
inappropriate for Test262:
- It apparently isn't very useful: despite being available for over 7
years, fewer than ten tests use it
- It's misleading: its documentation reads, "Verify that a subArray is
contained within an array." In reality, it only verifies that all the
elements of one array are present in another--order does not matter.
- It's not ergonomic for test authors: it has been misused to create
tests that were prone to false positives [1]
- It's not ergonomic for implementers: ostensibly designed for use with
`assert`, the failure messages produced by tests that use it do not
necessarily have very much context
All code in the "harness" directory adds to the total amount of
project-specific information which contributors are expected to to
learn. In light of the above deficiencies, the burden of this particular
harness file is unjustified.
Remove the harness file and its associated tests. Update the tests which
depend on it to express their expectations using alternate methods, and
strengthen the tests to assert element order wherever appropriate.
[1] https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3289
A number of tests for ECMA402 asserted the exact contents of the array
returned by various `resolvedOptions` methods. This conflicted with the
expectation that more options will be introduced by future editions of
the specification.
Update these tests to assert property order more generically in order to
accommodate implementation of future language proposals and more closely
align with similar tests.
Update all `resolvedOptions` tests to produce more meaningful error
messages (including replacing the generic `arrayContains` assertion with
a specific assertion regarding the value of the first array element).
Prior to this patch, the modified test invoked the `arrayContains`
utility function without referencing its return value. Unlike Test262's
assertion functions, `arrayContains` does not throw an error when the
expectation is violated, so the prior usage did not influence test
results.
Additionally, the prior version of this test documented incorrect
expectations regarding the expected value produced by the method under
test. Due to the above, these expectations were not enforced.
Correct the test's expectations and enforce those expectations with a
function that will reliably produce an exception if violated.
Specify a descriptive value for the previously-unused third parameter of
the `verifyFormatParts` function in order to disambiguate error
messages.
This patch was generated with the following command:
sed -i 's/\(verifyFormatParts([^,]\+, \)\([^,]\+\))/\1\2, "\2")/g' \
test/intl402/NumberFormat/prototype/formatToParts/signDisplay-currency-*
* Sync test of Temporal.Calendar.p*.fields to 1750
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull
* add more test
* add more tests for T*.Calendar.p*.fields
* Update test/built-ins/Temporal/Calendar/prototype/fields/long-input.js
Co-authored-by: Ms2ger <Ms2ger@gmail.com>
* Update test/built-ins/Temporal/Calendar/prototype/fields/long-input.js
Co-authored-by: Ms2ger <Ms2ger@gmail.com>
* Update test/built-ins/Temporal/Calendar/prototype/fields/repeated-throw.js
Co-authored-by: Ms2ger <Ms2ger@gmail.com>
* Update test/built-ins/Temporal/Calendar/prototype/fields/reverse.js
Co-authored-by: Ms2ger <Ms2ger@gmail.com>
* Update test/built-ins/Temporal/Calendar/prototype/fields/reverse.js
Co-authored-by: Ms2ger <Ms2ger@gmail.com>
* Remove loop
* Update test/built-ins/Temporal/Calendar/prototype/fields/long-input.js
Co-authored-by: Ms2ger <Ms2ger@gmail.com>
* Update long-input.js
* Update repeated-throw.js
* Update reverse.js
* ensure the implementation check the content
make sure the validation does not happen after the looping the generator
* add test to check all valid field value
Co-authored-by: Ms2ger <Ms2ger@gmail.com>
Some tests which include function declarations designed to verify
behavior do not reference those functions. Insert the references
necessary for those functions to serve their intended purpose.
