A DOM use case that can't be emulated with direct proxies

Andreas Rossberg rossberg at google.com
Fri Dec 14 02:01:15 PST 2012


On 13 December 2012 19:21, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:12 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As you say, to remain viable, it
>>> must be done quickly. From previous experience, I suggest that there's
>>> exactly one way to get quick universal deployment: add a test to
>>> test262 that fails when a browser's WindowProxy object violates this
>>> normative part of the ES5 spec.
>>
>> I feel such a test would rather belong to the HTML DOM. But either way, I
>> agree.
>
> The spec that it violates is ES5.1. Therefore it will be
> uncontroversial to put such tests into test262.

I have to strongly disagree here. By this argument, we could put in a
test for any JS extension in the world that potentially violates
proper ES semantics. I think test262 should test ECMA-262, nothing
else.

In particular, consider that test262 currently is a headless test,
i.e. no browser needed, a shell like d8 or jsc is enough to run it.
Putting in browser-specific tests would put a _huge_ burden on all
kinds of automated testing environments running this suite.

/Andreas


More information about the es-discuss mailing list