Fix spyOn restore descriptor for re-spying#397
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughModified the spy/restore mechanism to preserve and restore the full original property descriptor instead of reconstructing it, ensuring that Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
source/units/Goccia.Builtins.TestingLibrary.Test.pas (1)
3500-3503: Prefer asserting the restored flags through the public Object API.This part of the test now depends on
TGocciaObjectValue.GetOwnPropertyDescriptor/TGocciaPropertyDescriptorrather than the user-visible surface. If you want to keep the flag check, exercisingObject.getOwnPropertyDescriptorhere would preserve the coverage without coupling the test to descriptor internals.Based on learnings, native Pascal tests should stay focused on visible public behavior where possible and keep implementation details private.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@source/units/Goccia.Builtins.TestingLibrary.Test.pas` around lines 3500 - 3503, The test inspects property flags via internal types (TGocciaObjectValue.GetOwnPropertyDescriptor / TGocciaPropertyDescriptor) — change it to assert flags using the public JS API by calling Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Obj, 'method') and then checking the returned descriptor's configurable/writable/enumerable via the public surface (the result of Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor) instead of referencing Descriptor or TGocciaPropertyDescriptor; update the Expect<Boolean>(...) assertions to read from the JS API result and remove direct uses of GetOwnPropertyDescriptor and TGocciaPropertyDescriptor so the test relies only on visible Object API behavior.
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Nitpick comments:
In `@source/units/Goccia.Builtins.TestingLibrary.Test.pas`:
- Around line 3500-3503: The test inspects property flags via internal types
(TGocciaObjectValue.GetOwnPropertyDescriptor / TGocciaPropertyDescriptor) —
change it to assert flags using the public JS API by calling
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Obj, 'method') and then checking the returned
descriptor's configurable/writable/enumerable via the public surface (the result
of Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor) instead of referencing Descriptor or
TGocciaPropertyDescriptor; update the Expect<Boolean>(...) assertions to read
from the JS API result and remove direct uses of GetOwnPropertyDescriptor and
TGocciaPropertyDescriptor so the test relies only on visible Object API
behavior.
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 4955afc3-233f-48a0-b462-b878dd1b54b6
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
source/units/Goccia.Builtins.TestingLibrary.Test.passource/units/Goccia.Values.MockFunction.pas
Contributor
Benchmark Results386 benchmarks Interpreted: 🟢 292 improved · 🔴 16 regressed · 78 unchanged · avg +7.1% arraybuffer.js — Interp: 🟢 11, 3 unch. · avg +5.8% · Bytecode: 🔴 13, 1 unch. · avg -21.2%
arrays.js — Interp: 🟢 16, 3 unch. · avg +9.2% · Bytecode: 🔴 19 · avg -20.7%
async-await.js — Interp: 🟢 3, 3 unch. · avg +4.2% · Bytecode: 🔴 4, 2 unch. · avg -20.0%
base64.js — Interp: 🟢 8, 2 unch. · avg +8.3% · Bytecode: 🔴 10 · avg -22.3%
classes.js — Interp: 🟢 20, 🔴 1, 10 unch. · avg +4.9% · Bytecode: 🔴 31 · avg -18.2%
closures.js — Interp: 🟢 11 · avg +9.8% · Bytecode: 🔴 11 · avg -19.3%
collections.js — Interp: 🟢 12 · avg +11.2% · Bytecode: 🔴 12 · avg -21.1%
csv.js — Interp: 🟢 13 · avg +11.2% · Bytecode: 🔴 13 · avg -21.0%
destructuring.js — Interp: 🟢 18, 4 unch. · avg +5.3% · Bytecode: 🔴 22 · avg -19.8%
fibonacci.js — Interp: 🟢 8 · avg +8.1% · Bytecode: 🔴 8 · avg -19.6%
float16array.js — Interp: 🟢 24, 🔴 4, 4 unch. · avg +3.7% · Bytecode: 🔴 32 · avg -20.4%
for-of.js — Interp: 🟢 4, 🔴 1, 2 unch. · avg +2.2% · Bytecode: 🔴 7 · avg -19.4%
helpers/bench-module.js — Interp: 0 · Bytecode: 0
iterators.js — Interp: 🟢 28, 14 unch. · avg +5.1% · Bytecode: 🔴 42 · avg -19.7%
json.js — Interp: 🟢 18, 2 unch. · avg +9.4% · Bytecode: 🔴 20 · avg -17.4%
jsx.jsx — Interp: 🟢 13, 8 unch. · avg +4.4% · Bytecode: 🔴 21 · avg -21.5%
modules.js — Interp: 🟢 9 · avg +8.3% · Bytecode: 🔴 9 · avg -21.1%
numbers.js — Interp: 🟢 10, 1 unch. · avg +10.0% · Bytecode: 🔴 11 · avg -21.0%
objects.js — Interp: 🟢 3, 4 unch. · avg +2.8% · Bytecode: 🔴 7 · avg -13.8%
promises.js — Interp: 🟢 4, 8 unch. · avg +2.1% · Bytecode: 🔴 12 · avg -18.1%
regexp.js — Interp: 🟢 10, 1 unch. · avg +10.4% · Bytecode: 🔴 11 · avg -16.9%
strings.js — Interp: 🟢 17, 2 unch. · avg +13.3% · Bytecode: 🔴 19 · avg -21.2%
tsv.js — Interp: 🟢 8, 1 unch. · avg +7.9% · Bytecode: 🔴 9 · avg -19.9%
typed-arrays.js — Interp: 🟢 14, 🔴 5, 3 unch. · avg +2.5% · Bytecode: 🔴 22 · avg -22.0%
uint8array-encoding.js — Interp: 🟢 10, 🔴 5, 3 unch. · avg +16.6% · Bytecode: 🟢 3, 🔴 15 · avg -13.4%
Measured on ubuntu-latest x64. Benchmark ranges compare cached main-branch min/max ops/sec with the PR run; overlapping ranges are treated as unchanged noise. Percentage deltas are secondary context. |
Contributor
Suite Timing
Measured on ubuntu-latest x64. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Testing
Additional checks: