Temporal tests written for the SpiderMonkey implementation. Mostly
covers edge cases around mathematical operations and regression tests
for reported spec bugs.
A normative change that reached consensus at the June 2022 TC39 meeting
was this small change to throw on an invalid value for the overflow option
in PlainDate.from() and PlainDateTime.from(), in the case of a fast-path
conversion.
See https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2225
As of https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2219 the arguments to
the calendar.mergeFields() methods should be null-prototype objects when
called from with() and toPlainDate() methods. This adds tests for that
behaviour.
As of https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2219 the object
returned from the PrepareTemporalFields abstract operation should be a
null-prototype object. There are a number of places where this is
observable in one of the calendar's ...FromFields() methods. This adds
tests for this behaviour everywhere it is observable.
As of https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2219 PlainYearMonth's
add() and subtract() methods should be calling the calendar's
yearMonthFromFields() method with a null-prototype object as the options
parameter, due to the change in
AddDurationToOrSubtractDurationFromPlainYearMonth. This adds a test for
this behaviour.
As of https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2219 since() and
until() methods should be calling the calendar's dateUntil() method with a
null-prototype object as the options parameter, due to the change in
MergeLargestUnitOption. This adds a test for this behaviour.
This adds tests for a normative change which reached consensus in the June
2022 TC39 meeting, ensuring that the representable range of
Temporal.Instant is always the same regardless of which time zone offset
is used when converting from a string.
See: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/pull/2189
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
```
Aditi
Frank Yung-Fong Tang
snek
Romulo Cintra
André Bargull
Romulo Cintra
Mathias Bynens
Ms2ger
Yusuke Suzuki
dnalborczyk
Philip Chimento
legendecas
Youssef Soliman
Mike Pennisi
Ross Kirsling
Dmitriy Kubyshkin