-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Host-specific hook for HostPromiseRejectionTracker #29
Comments
I'd love it if @domenic weighed in here too since (I think) he knows the most about |
I don't think this can usefully be tested in test262, because the host's implementation could be to do nothing, in a which case no tests are applicable. Similarly, it could be arbitrarily complicated, so some kind of generic framework doesn't make sense either. Besides the above, Node and web-platform-tests already have extensive tests of their APIs here, and so I don't think it's a high priority for test262. |
@domenic so you're saying this should be tested in Node and web-platform-tests? That makes sense. Is there a formal (or not formal) process in the web-platform tests for ECMAScript removing/adding a feature? I'm not aware of anything of the sort for Node. |
@domenic The reason this came up is because I was suggesting testing how Promise.prototype.finally interacts with this hook (since it does so in a slightly counterintuitive way). Do you think tests for these new JS language feature interactions should always be done in those embedder repositories? |
Yes; everything related to host hooks should be tested in host test suites. |
@littledan i'm not sure how it's counterintuitive - in I agree that host hooks should probably be tested in host tests, since there's no way to test them in the language semantics. |
@domenic So should we not have detached TypedArray tests in test262? |
Detached typed arrays are not specified in terms of an arbitrary-behavior host hook. |
The conversation begins here: tc39/test262#1156 (comment)
cc @ljharb @littledan @benjamingr @leobalter @jugglinmike
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: