I used kind of misleading parameter names in this function, they are not
"one" and "two" of the same thing, but a Temporal.PlainDate and a
Temporal.Duration.
Tests for the normative changes made to Temporal in
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/1873
This adds a new Temporal helper calendar that asserts that its dateAdd()
method is always called with a PlainDate instance. This allows testing
that relativeTo parameters are always converted to PlainDate if they are
not ZonedDateTime and not undefined. Prior to the normative PR, they
would be converted to PlainDateTime instead.
Additionally and optionally, the helper calendar can also assert that its
dateAdd() method is called with a specific PlainDate instance. This allows
testing that the instance is the same PlainDate passed as the relativeTo
parameter (in the case of Duration methods) or is the receiver (in the
case of PlainDate methods). For the PlainDateTime and PlainYearMonth
methods the PlainDate instance is synthesized internally so there is no
need to assert that dateAdd() is called with a specific instance.
Tests for the normative changes made to Temporal in
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/1875
For convenience, adds some functions to TemporalHelpers to assert that two
Temporal objects are equal, for Duration, Instant, PlainDateTime,
PlainTime, and ZonedDateTime.
* Temporal.now.plainDateTime: import tests from prop
* Add required metadata
* Correct invalid test
Ensure the error is thrown due to the invocation of the provided method.
Add a separate test to verify how the method is invoked.
* Remove duplicated assertions
* Improve coverage
* Rewrite test to focus on Calendar parameter
The observable interactions with the "timeZone" parameter are verified
by another test which is named for that purpose.
* Remove non-standard test
This test's title suggests that it was intended to verify the behavior
when the "calendar" parameter was undefined. The expected behavior in
that case depends on the presence of a builtin calendar named
"undefined." Test262 cannot definitively assert the presence or absence
of such a calendar.
In contrast to the title, the test body actually uses the calendar name
"japanese." Test262 cannot definitively assert the presence or absence
of such a calendar.