While we're at it, use assert() instead of assert.sameValue() for brevity,
if we are not specifically testing that the return value of hasOwnProperty
is the value true or false; and add more informative assertion messages to
help with debugging.
In some cases, the Object.hasOwnProperty.call could be replaced with
verifyProperty(), if the property descriptor was also being verified at
the same time.
This fixes some tests that were faulty to begin with: a common mistake was
Object.hasOwnProperty(obj, prop) which is probably going to return false
when that's not what you want.
The only instances left of `Object.hasOwnProperty` are one regression test
in implementation-contributed which I can't tell if it was intentionally
needed to trigger the regression, and a few instances of
`Object.hasOwnProperty('prototype')` which would defeat the purpose to
convert into `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(Object, 'prototype')`
form.
Closes: #3524
There were three things wrong with the 'and', 'or', and 'nullish' tests
that I added as part of #2940:
1. They were in the wrong folder (should be
expressions/logical-assignment, not expressions/compound-assignment)
2. The tests for ||= and ??= on readonly accessor properties were
incorrect. These assignments would short-circuit if the getter
returned 1 as it previously did, so PutValue would not throw.
3. The tests for ||= and ??= on private methods were invalid, as a
method always evaluates to true in a boolean context, and is not
nullish, so these would always short-circuit.
I've removed the invalid private method cases, fixed the readonly
accessor cases, and added new templates to test the short-circuit
behaviour as well as the non-short-circuit behaviour.
Closes: #3413
This tests compound assignment, with each compound assignment operator,
to each kind of private reference (private field, private accessor
property with getter and setter, private accessor property with only
getter, and private method). The latter two cannot be assigned to and
therefore throw.
Closes: #2940
The phase field must precede the type field for negative tests
to have a consistent style and be able to parse easier.
Related to the goal of https://github.com/tc39/test262/issues/1997
Added this check to the linting script and updated tests accordingly.
Some tests which include function declarations designed to verify
behavior do not reference those functions. Insert the references
necessary for those functions to serve their intended purpose.
This reverts commit b690cb67be, reversing
changes made to 50dd431dff. This is
necessary because the reverted changeset reduced coverage by an unknown
extent.
Prior to this commit, the modified tests used the strict equality
operator to compare computed values with negative zero. Due to the
semantics of that operator, these tests would spuriously pass if the
value under test was in fact positive zero.
Update the tests to be more precise by instead asserting equality with
the `assert.sameValue` utility method (since that method correctly
distinguishes between negative zero and positive zero).
Prior to this commit, the modified test included two different
expressions in positions that were meant to describe the same
expression. This meant that the value of the intended expression was
only partially verified.
Correct the test to fully verify the value of the expression.
The following proposed change modifies the semantics this test was
originally written to verify:
Normative: Allow null or undefined in Reference Records
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2267
* Add tests for "Class Static Init. Blocks" proposal
This proposal is currently at "stage 3" in TC39's standardization
process.
* fixup! Add tests for "Class Static Init. Blocks" proposal
* Correct identifier reference
* Update tests for grammar
* Update tests for identifiers
* Add tests for scope derivation
These tests support the following normative change
"Normative: Allow null or undefined in Reference Records"
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2267
The tests concerning the `delete` operator increase coverage to verify
behavior which, though related, is not altered by the normative change.
These tests are intended to guard against regressions as engines
implement the new semantics.
Additionally, update test metadata and introduce two new tests to
complete coverage.
Reference: "Normative: Make B.1.{1,2} normative"
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1867
These tests were designed to test the built-in "Promise.race Resolve
Element function," but ECMA262 does not describe such a function.
Contrary to the test's description, the function under test is created
by the InstantiateArrowFunctionExpression abstract operation. The
following tests verify most of the details directly (only the function
object's extensibility was not already tested by the existing tests):
- test/language/expressions/arrow-function/name.js
- test/language/expressions/arrow-function/throw-new.js
- test/language/expressions/arrow-function/prototype-rules.js
The definition of the built-in resolving functions is closely related,
but Test262 already includes tests for the corresponding concerns:
- test/built-ins/Promise/resolve-function-extensible.js
- test/built-ins/Promise/resolve-function-name.js
- test/built-ins/Promise/resolve-function-nonconstructor.js
- test/built-ins/Promise/resolve-function-prototype.js
Remove the tests and introduce one additional test to preserve coverage
while improving discoverability.
Nicolò Ribaudo
Michael Dyck
Veera
Huáng Jùnliàng
José Julián Espina
Cam Tenny
Philip Chimento
Gokhan Kurt
legendecas
Youssef Soliman
Richard Gibson
Philip Chimento
Csaba Osztrogonác
Daniel Nalborczyk
Mike Pennisi
Rick Waldron
rwaldron
André Bargull
devsnek