On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Mark Miller <erig...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossb...@google.com> > wrote: >> >> On 14 December 2012 16:54, Mark Miller <erig...@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 <slightly...@google.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> +1. What Andreas said. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Friday, December 14, 2012, Andreas Rossberg wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On 13 December 2012 19:21, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:12 AM, David Bruant <bruan...@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@mozilla.org >> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> es-discuss mailing list >> >> es-discuss@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 _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
