ES6 __proto__ test suite

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Tue Apr 23 14:15:32 PDT 2013


test driven specs development ... I like that. Everything seems to be OK
except one test is missing which is the key for me, the (hopefully not)
poisoned setter


On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:34 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Based on recent messages on es-discuss, I feel that both es-discuss and
> apparently even TC39 meetings with notes have left ambiguity in what people
> understood the TC39 agreement was. I believe this ambiguity is due to this
> pretty bad communication format called the English language (For anyone in
> doubt, French is as bad; I'm afraid it's a property inherent to natural
> languages :-) ).
>
> This is wasting everyone time and energy. This generate frustration
> additional to the already existing frustration caused by standardizing
> __proto__ at all.
> So I would like to encourage TC39 to discuss around and create consensus
> around a test suite. Most people write code snippets anyway in emails.
> Let's just gather them and make sure everyone agree on the test suite.
> As a materialization of this encouragement, I have started a __proto__
> test suite [1] that attempts to capture the current consensus and recent
> discussions.
>
> A couple of things:
> * It is CC0 licenced to allow ECMA to pull these tests, copy them, adapt
> them without any issue.
> * It is built with qunit [2]. I would have loved to use the ES5 test
> harness tool, but its API is unfortunately completly undocumented. I
> believe qunit is clear and unambiguous enough to make a better job at
> capturing the current consensus and list places where there is no
> consensus. (I hope Github will play a role in that too :-) )
> * To prevent (!) code reuse and enable cross-realm testing, I've embedded
> tests as inline <script>
> * I'll try to keep up with consensus and feedback, but I'm just one
> person. Feel free to send pull requests. Why not move the discussion to
> these pull requests if appropriate.
> * Feel free to fork and lead the project your own way if you think the way
> I do it is stupid. I won't get offended. My only goal here is for the
> __proto__ discussion to get more structure than it currently has.
> * For some tests, I have lost track of what's agreed on and even what are
> all the alternatives, so I've left a TODO.
> * I haven't run the tests in current browsers yet besides to check that I
> didn't have syntax errors :-)
>
> I encourage everyone who cares to review the current tests and send
> feedback:
> https://github.com/**DavidBruant/ES6ProtoTests/**blob/master/base.html<https://github.com/DavidBruant/ES6ProtoTests/blob/master/base.html>
> https://github.com/**DavidBruant/ES6ProtoTests/**
> blob/master/cross-realm.html<https://github.com/DavidBruant/ES6ProtoTests/blob/master/cross-realm.html>
> https://github.com/**DavidBruant/ES6ProtoTests/**
> blob/master/object%20literal.**html<https://github.com/DavidBruant/ES6ProtoTests/blob/master/object%20literal.html>
>
> Can someone explain or write tests regarding what's supposed to happen for
> JSON, please?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> [1] https://github.com/**DavidBruant/ES6ProtoTests<https://github.com/DavidBruant/ES6ProtoTests>
> [2] http://api.qunitjs.com/**category/all/<http://api.qunitjs.com/category/all/>
> ______________________________**_________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130423/edf0c833/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list