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 <bruan...@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@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
