Fixes gh-696
As pointed in gh-696, the ArrayBuffer ctor won't throw a RangeError when
invoked without arguments.
Instead of fixing the invalid assertion, this commit removes it as the
coverage for subclassing is already satisfied by the use of slice.
The global isNaN is not precise at all, and Number.isNaN is an ES6 feature that makes it preferrable to use assert's sameValue for NaN values, as it handles it internally using the comparison.
A subtle aspect of the for-of iteration protocol concerns abrupt
completions that do *not* trigger iterator closing. Although this detail
is implicit in the current structure of the specification text, some
hosts may violate the protocol by closing the iterator because later
steps *do* specify that behavior.
The V8 engine is one such host--as of this writing, it incorrectly
closes the iterator when accessing the `value` property of the iterator
result produces an abrupt completion.
Add tests verifying that the iterator protocol is not violated in this
way for abrupt completions during the semantics of for-of evaluation.
Ensure that when HasBinding of an Object environment record returns an
abrupt completion, that same completion is returned to the runtime.
Update the meta-data of related tests for consistency with this new
test.
The latest revision of ECMA262 makes special provisions for classes
which extend the `null` value [1]. Update the relevant tests
accordingly.
[1] https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/543
Add tests that assert the management of the running execution context's
LexicalEnvironment and VariableEnvironment components, as created by the
following abstract operations:
- NewDeclarativeEnvironment
- NewObjectEnvironment
- NewFunctionEnvironment
Many tests require the use of non-strict direct eval, meaning they may
not be run in strict mode. This does not effect coverage because the
semantics in these cases are not observable from strict mode code.
Some situations require the creation of a binding, but this binding has
no relevance to the test itself. In these cases, use names consisting
solely of the underscore character (`_`).
Avoid the use of Block statements wherever possible, as these trigger
the creation of additional environments which may interfere with the
behavior under test.
This harness function is not necessary in the majority of cases in which
it is used. Remove its usage to simplify tests and decrease the amount
of domain-specific knowledge necessary to contribute to the test suite.
Persist the harness function itself for use by future tests for ES2015
modules (such a helper is necessary for tests that are interpreted as
module code).
The runtime semantics of this statement are host-defined and therefore
untestable, but the statement's affect on the formal grammar should be
consistent across all implementations.
- Prefix file names to explicitly describe the "head" position
- Remove statement name suffix as this information is reflected by each
file's location within the file hierarchy
The harness file `Test262Error.js` has not contained executable code since it
was introduced in this project [1]. The definition of the `Test262Error`
function has consistently been located in the `sta.js` harness file which test
runners are expected to inject into the test environment.
Remove the file and all references to it.
[1] See commit c33bf0e043
ECMAScript 2015 introduced tail call optimization for function calls
occuring in a number of positions in the grammar. Assert expected
behavior by triggering a large (but configurable) number of recursive
function calls in these positions. Compliant runtimes will execute such
programs without error; non-compliant runtimes are expected to fail
these tests by throwing an error or crashing when system resources are
exhausted.
The ES2016 draft further refines the completion values for `if` and
`with` statements. Two tests must be removed outright because the
completion value in those cases is no longer accessible from the
runtime.
In order to facilitate proper tail calls, ES2015 modified the completion
value of a number of statements.
These tests use `eval` to verify the new values.
Although the `for..in` statement allows Expressions to define the
iterator, only an AssignmentExpression may occupy this position in the
`for..of` statement.
Leonardo Balter
jugglinmike
André Bargull
Gorkem Yakin
Jeff Walden