Prior to this commit, two tests for specific early errors also included
syntactically invalid `const` declarations. Implementations which
produced the expected syntax error due to these invalid declarations
would pass the tests regardless of whether they produced the early
errors that the tests were written to verify.
Correct the `const` declarations so that the tests verify the parsing
rule that they were designed to verify.
The test as originally specified fails in all compatible parsers, but for the wrong reason. Below is an excerpt from V8, but all parser I tested behave the same:
```js
for (const x; false; ) {
^
SyntaxError: Missing initializer in const declaration
```
After the change the error is the assumed:
```js
var x;
^
SyntaxError: Identifier 'x' has already been declared
```
As originally written, this test would spuriously pass when the deleted
property was incorrectly visited by enumation but correctly removed from
the object. In such cases, the accumulator string would take the form
"aa1baundefinedca3"
And satisfy all conditions intended to highlight implementation errors.
Refactor the test to avoid false negative by using an object with a null
prototype and verifying the exact contents of the accumulator string.
As originally written, this test would spuriously pass when the deleted
property was incorrectly visited by enumation but correctly removed from
the object. In such cases, the accumulator string would take the form
"aa1baundefinedca3"
And satisfy all conditions intended to highlight implementation errors.
Refactor the test to avoid false negative by using an object with a null
prototype and verifying the exact contents of the accumulator string.
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.
This reverts commit b690cb67be9b487eb10156c03e2c00869e88cc9d, reversing
changes made to 50dd431dffe5cf86e9064a652d6b01dbbe542cf0. This is
necessary because the reverted changeset reduced coverage by an unknown
extent.
Prior to this commit, the modified tests used the strict equality
operator to compare computed values with negative zero. Due to the
semantics of that operator, these tests would spuriously pass if the
value under test was in fact positive zero.
Update the tests to be more precise by instead asserting equality with
the `assert.sameValue` utility method (since that method correctly
distinguishes between negative zero and positive zero).
Since https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1490, the "length" and "name"
properties of a class are defined before any static methods. This is
tested by #2057, in test/language/computed-property-names of all places.
At the same time, static methods with "name" as the name would overwrite
the original property, but retain the original property enumeration
order. This was not previously tested. In fact, the overwriting behavior
was not tested at all for the "length" property.
This commit mends both holes in test coverage.
* Add tests for "Class Static Init. Blocks" proposal
This proposal is currently at "stage 3" in TC39's standardization
process.
* fixup! Add tests for "Class Static Init. Blocks" proposal
* Correct identifier reference
* Update tests for grammar
* Update tests for identifiers
* Add tests for scope derivation
Several tests for getters and setters claim to check for an early
SyntaxError regarding mixing static and non-static propeties with the
same name. However, the tests trigger another issue: the getters have no
method body; they're missing curlies.
Fix the tests to test only the intended SyntaxError, not unrelated
SyntaxError-s.
