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

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Fri Dec 14 10:04:48 PST 2012


On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Mark Miller <erights at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 December 2012 16:54, Mark Miller <erights at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Regarding what Andreas said and what Alex +1ed, we already have
>> > precedent.
>> > We already argued through this precedent in committee and agreed. I like
>> > David's suggestion about how to organize these tests.
>>
>> Hm, unless you are talking about intl402, I wasn't aware of that.
>> What's the precedent?
>
>
> I will find it when I have time. If anyone else finds it first, please post
> a link. Thanks.

http://hg.ecmascript.org/tests/test262/file/c84161250e66/test/suite/ch15/15.2/15.2.3/15.2.3.6/S15.2.3.6_A1.js



>
>>
>>
>> If the non ES tests are separated properly then it's probably less of
>> an issue, though I still prefer that such tests are under a different
>> umbrella. Just to make clear that they are not actually testing ES
>> engines.
>>
>> That is, I'd much rather have a structure like (modulo details of naming):
>>
>> estests/
>>   test262/
>>     ch*/
>>   intl402/
>>   platforms/
>
>
> The violation is a violation of the normative ES-262 5.1 spec. Host objects
> as exposed to ES are part of the TCB, and constrained by the ES spec. The ES
> spec is does not just constrain ES engines. If you want to make a separate
> engines/ subdirectory of test262/ and move all the engine-only tests there,
> I would not object. But I also would not recommend bothering.
>
>
>>
>>
>> /Andreas
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff at google.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1. What Andreas said.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Friday, December 14, 2012, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> es-discuss mailing list
>> >>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> es-discuss mailing list
>> >> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
>> >
>> >   Cheers,
>> >   --MarkM
>
>
>
>
> --
> Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
>
>   Cheers,
>   --MarkM



--
    Cheers,
    --MarkM


More information about the es-discuss mailing list