ES6 __proto__ test suite

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Wed Apr 24 11:08:54 PDT 2013


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:14 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Le 23/04/2013 23:47, Rick Waldron a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:34 PM, 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.
>
>
>  Do you mean something other then the one that already exists?
>
>  http://test262.ecmascript.org/#
>
> If TC39 adds tests to this test suite *before* ES6 becomes an official
> standard, use this, yes. Please writes hundreds of tests for ES6.
> For the anecdote, I've started a test suite for proxies [1] and the
> exercise led to feedback [2][3], some of which were spec bugs [4][5]. So I
> don't know, maybe there is some virtue to write tests before the spec is
> shipped. Not for the sake of writing tests or even the sake of getting a
> conformance test suite, but for the spec of spending time carefully
> reviewing the drafts and catching spec bugs early. For the sake of having a
> structured medium to discuss on and not just plain-text emails with
> occasional code snippets.
>
> But I don't see TC39 adding tests. Worse, I see the same conversations
> happening over and over on __proto__. Even after the January TC39 meeting.
> Even with the notes, ambiguities and misunderstanding remain.
>
> So, until tests are added to http://test262.ecmascript.org/, I propose
> using a test suite not as a conformance tool, but as a conversation medium.
> This is an attempt to move the conversation from words like "poisoned",
> "realm", "magic" (!) to a conversation where there are a bunch (20, 50,
> 100?) of test cases where TC39 says "for all of these cases, we agree the
> test must pass" and where people can have a very concrete medium to point
> out and say "I agree this test must pass, but this more subtle test case
> must pass too" (refining the previous test case)
>
> The goal of the test suite I have started is not to run it. It's for human
> beings to discuss around it; to read it, explain why they disagree, correct
> an existing test or add one for each disagreement. A communication medium
> in essence.
> At this point, I believe that a test suite would be an excellent
> complement to meeting notes to capture consensus.
>


Again, I suggest subscribing to
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/test262-discuss

This conversation is happening right now, starting here:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/test262-discuss/2013-April/000169.html

Rick



>
> David
>
> [1] https://github.com/DavidBruant/ProxyTests
> [2]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-September/025032.html
> [3] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-October/025555.html
> [4]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-September/025033.html
> [5] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-October/025615.html
> [6] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=837627
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130424/dea66b67/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list