Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
  1. Dec 20, 2018
  2. Oct 23, 2018
  3. Jul 24, 2018
    • Thomas Wood's avatar
      Add feature flags for `new.target` · 2d4ac25f
      Thomas Wood authored
      Additionally removed the `arrow-function` feature for
      test/language/eval-code/direct/new.target-fn.js as it is not testing
      arrow-functions, but they are mentioned in the preamble.
      2d4ac25f
  4. Jan 05, 2018
    • Mike Pennisi's avatar
      Rename negative test "phase" for parsing · 13611037
      Mike Pennisi authored
      Early errors may result from parsing the source text of a test file, but
      they may also result from parsing some other source text as referenced
      through the ES2015 module syntax. The latter form of early error is not
      necessarily detectable by ECMAScript parsers, however. Because of this,
      the label "early" is not sufficiently precise for all Test262 consumers
      to correctly interpret all tests.
      
      Update the "phase" name of "early" to "parse" for all those negative
      tests that describe errors resulting from parsing of the file's source
      text directly. A forthcoming commit will update the remaining tests to
      use a "phase" name that is more specific to module resolution.
      13611037
    • Rick Waldron's avatar
      Frontmatter: fixup "info: >" to "info: |" · 92a26219
      Rick Waldron authored
      92a26219
  5. Jun 28, 2017
  6. Mar 02, 2017
  7. Mar 01, 2017
  8. Oct 19, 2016
    • Mike Pennisi's avatar
      Re-format tests for SyntaxErrors · 7d4b1d28
      Mike Pennisi authored
      Authored via the following command:
      
         $ find test -type f -print0 | \
             xargs -0 sed \
               -i 's/^\(\s*\)negative:\s*SyntaxError\s*$/\1negative:\n\1  phase: early\n\1  type: SyntaxError/g'
      7d4b1d28
  9. Jul 20, 2016
    • jugglinmike's avatar
      Add tests for script interactions (#689) · b9e21138
      jugglinmike authored
      ECMA262 allows for an arbitrary number of "ScriptJob"s to run in a given realm.
      Although there is no standard mechanism for enqueuing these jobs, many
      implementations offer this functionality through custom APIs. In those hosts,
      the semantics describing script interactions are directly observable.
      In order to guarantee conformance to the specification in advance of a
      standardized API, Test262 now requires that hosts provide a $.evalScript
      function whose behavior is defined in the project's "INTERPRETING.md" file.
      Use this host-provided API to ensure that implementations correctly observe the
      specification text that dictates script interactions.
      (In writing these tests, I noticed some gaps in coverage that are observable
      from a single script execution. This patch includes a dedicated commit for
      these tests that do not require $.evalScript.)
      
      * Improve coverage of GlobalDeclarationInstantiation
      
      * Add tests for script interactions
      
      Use the host-provied `$.evalScript` method to assert conformance to the
      specification text that defines script interactions.
      
      * fixup! Improve coverage of GlobalDeclarationInstantiation
      b9e21138
  10. Jul 02, 2016
  11. Jul 01, 2016
    • jugglinmike's avatar
      Improve coverage for section 12, "Expression" (#695) · e290a337
      jugglinmike authored
      * Add missing test for early error
      
      * Add missing test for WithBaseObject
      
      * Improve coverage for `new.target`
      
      * Add test for deletion of SuperReference
      
      * Add tests for `in` keyword restrictions
      
      * fixup! Improve coverage for `new.target`
      e290a337
  12. Jun 21, 2016
  13. Apr 18, 2016
  14. Mar 11, 2016
  15. Feb 19, 2016
    • Mike Pennisi's avatar
      Add tests for position of module declarations · a6dcd0dc
      Mike Pennisi authored
      Assert that ImportDeclaration and ExportDeclaration match only the
      ModuleItem symbol.
      
      According to the definition of HostResolveImportedModule, it is
      acceptable for an implementation to throw a SyntaxError in the event
      that a requested module can neither be found nor created:
      
      > If a Module Record corresponding to the pair referencingModule,
      > specifier does not exist or cannot be created, an exception must be
      > thrown.
      
      In order to reliably detect a SyntaxError in response to the correct
      interpretation of the grammar (and not a SyntaxError from an *incorrect*
      interpretation of the grammar followed by a failure to resolve the
      requested module), the ModuleSpecifier of ExportDeclarations should
      describe a valid resource.
      a6dcd0dc
  16. Dec 07, 2014
Loading