This PR proposes changes to existing test262 tests to allow them to pass under Hardened JavaScript (see Secure ECMAScript proposal and Hardened JavaScript). Moddable uses Hardened JavaScript for JavaScript runtimes on resource constrained embedded devices, including those targeted by ECMA-419.
The changes fall into four groups:
1. Replace use of new Date() with new Date(1970). Scripts running inside a Compartment cannot retrieve the current time, so new Date() throws but new Date(1970) succeeds. Very few tests need the current time, but instead simply need a Date instance.
2. Use Object.defineProperty instead of setting existing built-in properties directly, such as toString and toValue. In Hardened JavaScript, prototypes of built-in objects are frozen. Consequently, setting properties of an instance that exist on the prototype throw (Hardened JavaScript is always in strict mode).
3. Eliminate use of Math.random(). Scripts running inside a Compartment cannot generate random numbers. One test identified so far uses Math.random() in a way that can easily be replaced with a counter.
4. Narrow the scope of exception tests. Consider the following
assert.throws(TypeError, () => {
var s1 = new Date();
s1.toString = Boolean.prototype.toString;
s1.toString();
});
This test passes, but only because new Date() fails by throwing a TypeError. If the invocation of the Date constructor is resolved by (1) above, then the assignment to toString fails as per (2) above. The script should be modified as below to ensure that assert.throws only tests the intended statement, s1.toString(). The modified script tests the intended functionality and passes under Hardened JavaScript
var s1 = new Date(1970);
Object.defineProperty(s1, "toString", {
value: Boolean.prototype.toString
});
assert.throws(TypeError, () => {
s1.toString();
});
This is an initial PR to begin the process of adapting test262 for use with Hardened JavaScript. Further changes are expected, with the vast majority likely to fall into the four groups described above.
Thank you to gibson042, kriskowal, and erights for their advice on this work.
There is no such hidden constructor, it's the same as the hidden
AsyncFunction constructor. In other words:
```js
Object.getPrototypeOf(async () => {}).constructor ===
Object.getPrototypeOf(async function () {}).constructor
```
Also add a test to ensure that %AsyncFunction.prototype% is indeed the
prototype of an async arrow function.
Closes#4044.
* Update test for o[p] = f()
Update S11.13.1_A7_T3.js now that consensus has been reached on https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3307.
* Rename test and add an analogous one for super.
Based on PR #3807 which had generated these tests from templates,
but was stuck due to issue #3808.
Co-Authored-By: Guillaume Emont <guijemont@igalia.com>
Co-Authored-By: Ioanna M. Dimitriou H <idimitriou@igalia.com>
Hosts are free to throw whatever error they want during module loading: there is no guarantee that the error thrown due to the import with `type: "foo"` is a SyntaxError.
For the statement level test, the inner class name is not initialized
at the time the decorators evaluate, resulting in a ReferenceError
that the declaration can not be accessed prior to initialization.
Similar, non-decorator code, like:
class C {
static dec() {}
static {
this.x = C.dec();
class C {}
}
}
also results in a ReferenceError.
For the expression level test, the var C is undefined at the time the
decorators are evaluated, resulting in TypeError while trying to access
a member of undefined.
Similar, non-decorator code, like:
var C = class {
static f() {};
static {
this.x = C.f();
}
}
also results in a TypeError.
Peter Hoddie
Linus Groh
Nicolò Ribaudo
Chengzhong Wu
Ross Kirsling
Marko Lahma
Ross Kirsling
Shu-yu Guo
Ioanna M. Dimitriou H
Guillaume Emont
Cam Tenny
Lucas Mirelmann
Kevin Gibbons
Michael Dyck
Richard Gibson
Veera
Daniel Minor
Alexey Shvayka
André Bargull
Mathias Bynens
Nicolò Ribaudo
Nicolò Ribaudo
José Julián Espina
Huáng Jùnliàng