A prior version of ECMA262 described invalid mathematical operations
with infinite values [1]. Update the test metadata to reflect the
corrected specification text, and add two assertions for the obsolete
conditions.
[1] ".bind on a function with infinite length has imprecise spec and
engine divergences"
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/2170
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.
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2003 is a normative change
that reached consensus at the March 2022 TC39 plenary meeting. This adds
tests that verify the new spec text is implemented correctly, performing
arithmetic on a PlainYearMonth instance that would previously have thrown
an error if it was implemented as written.
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2090 is a normative change
that reached consensus at the March 2022 TC39 plenary meeting. This adds
tests that verify the change made to the formatting of years between 0 and
999 inclusive in all toString and toJSON methods of Temporal types that
can output an ISO year number in their return value.
(Philip, March 2022: This was originally Frank's PR #3057. I did some
reformatting, removed duplicate tests, addressed the review comments that
I left the first time around, and added some cases that I felt were not
yet complete.)
(Philip, March 2022: This was originally Frank's PR #3060. I did some
reformatting, removed a test that didn't exercise the whole feature, and
combined some duplicate tests with some existing tests.)
Where possible, observable calls originating from within Temporal, that
require an options argument, should pass `undefined` as that options
argument, rather than `{}` or `Object.create(null)`.
See tc39/proposal-temporal#1685.
I made a mistake with one of the signs in one of the time zones that we
use for verifying DST handling. Luckily this didn't affect any previously
existing tests, but it affected some new tests that I'm going to add in
the next commit.
How do I know that _this_ arithmetic is correct? I feel reasonably
confident with the added test.
The `.jshintrc` file configures the JavaScript "linting" tool named
JSHint. Test262 does not depend on that tool, making the file's purpose
and validity ambiguous and potentially distracting.
These tests check API entry points that convert strings to
Temporal.PlainDate, with a list of various strings that are all not valid
for that context according to ISO 8601.
I'd like to add basic functionality tests for string arguments, and these
tests are testing something more specific: that a Get of the "overflow"
property on the passed-in options object is observable. Rename
accordingly.
* Create a Temporal.PlainDateTime with all arguments supplied.
Migrates some tests that currently exist in the
proposal-temporal repo.
* Check all data in Temporal.PlainDateTimes, variously constructed
Enrich existing tests to check all basic data in the
instance of `Temporal.PlainDateTime`, not just a single
field.
These additional checks were motivated by the migration of
existing Demitasse tests in the proposal-temporal repo to
test262. The Demitasse tests check more than a single
field.
