-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 461
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
Add tests for Temporal.now.plainDateTime #3037
Conversation
Ensure the error is thrown due to the invocation of the provided method. Add a separate test to verify how the method is invoked.
The observable interactions with the "timeZone" parameter are verified by another test which is named for that purpose.
This test's title suggests that it was intended to verify the behavior when the "calendar" parameter was undefined. The expected behavior in that case depends on the presence of a builtin calendar named "undefined." Test262 cannot definitively assert the presence or absence of such a calendar. In contrast to the title, the test body actually uses the calendar name "japanese." Test262 cannot definitively assert the presence or absence of such a calendar.
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ | |||
// Copyright (C) 2020 Igalia, S.L. All rights reserved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, originates here: tc39/proposal-temporal@60211b2
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@ | |||
// Copyright (C) 2020 Igalia, S.L. All rights reserved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note to self: this was initially testing the case where Calendar.from
was undefined:
Object.defineProperty(Temporal.Calendar, "from", {
get() {
actual.push("get Temporal.Calendar.from");
return undefined;
},
});
Need to check what happened here.
I would appreciate it if you didn't merge Termporal tests over my outstanding comments. |
Sorry, I don't remember seeing that comment. I reviewed all of the files, spent about an hour cross checking them with the original sources in https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/tree/main/polyfill/test/Now/plainDateTime and when I was satisfied, I approved and merged. I'm sure it's possible that in the time between my review and then my review of the proposal's tests, that your comment came in, but my view didn't update for any number of unknowable reasons. Anyway, please consider it nothing more than an accident. |
I am curious though... how would you have liked me to handle a comment that starts with "Note to self:"? |
In service of gh-3002
/cc @ptomato @Ms2ger