Implement upsert methods for Map

[jasonmilad]

This Pull Request implements part of the Upsert proposal for Map.

It changes the following:

• Adds Map.prototype.getOrInsert method.
• Adds Map.prototype.getOrInsertComputed method.
• Implements canonicalization of keys (-0 → +0) per the spec draft.
• Includes new tests for both methods to ensure correct behavior.

[jasonmilad]

#4436

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 93.75000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 51.46%. Comparing base (6ddc2b4) to head (d1920c6).
⚠️ Report is 540 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
core/engine/src/builtins/map/mod.rs	92.85%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4436      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   47.24%   51.46%   +4.22%     
==========================================
  Files         476      504      +28     
  Lines       46892    51343    +4451     
==========================================
+ Hits        22154    26424    +4270     
- Misses      24738    24919     +181     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[hansl]

Good job so far! Two minor nits and one blocker which panics in the compliance tests.

This seems to fix some test262 compliance tests, so that's great! But also, we ignored the Upsert-specific tests, to re-enable them you need to remove these lines: https://github.com/boa-dev/boa/blob/main/test262_config.toml#L51-L54

And run the test262 suite (it might take a while):

cargo run --bin boa_tester -- run

You can also add the --suite test/built-ins/Map/prototype argument to only run Map-specific compliance tests.

[hansl]

Two nits, one non-blocking and one I'd like to see fixed before merging. Otherwise LGTM and ready to merge (outside of those nits).

Also, note: force pushing the whole PR makes it hard to review. We don't use commit messages when merging into main (only the PR description), so just push new commits to PRs and I can see the diff clearer.

Thanks a lot!

[hansl]

Non-blocking nit: no need for use strict.

[jasonmilad]

Without use strict, is this undefined?

[hansl]

Just realized that our editorconfig didn't have 4 spaces for indentation. I made #4446, but in the meantime, could you reconfigure your editor to have 4 spaces, then re-format this file? That way we can actually see what changed :)

[jasonmilad]

Absolutely

[hansl]

LGTM. To answer your question, it should not, no. Unless the function is bound of course.

Not a blocker IMO.

[hansl]

Good work @jasonmilad ! Thanks so much for the PR and the patience going through the review process.