Skip to content
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

Update async iteration tests with respect to pending spec change #1250

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Oct 4, 2017

Conversation

caitp
Copy link
Contributor

@caitp caitp commented Sep 28, 2017

Update behaviour based on changes from
tc39/ecma262#988. The actual spec change PR for
async iteration is not yet uploaded.

This does not include any changes to Async-from-Sync Iterator.

@leobalter
Copy link
Member

@caitp can we split out the helper from this PR into a new one? I'm ok to merge
07dfe8c and ec32b6f, but I'm not sure about the helper itself.

The way Test262 is updated varies from each implementation and maintaining this tool here might be tricky for me as I'm not sure if we would have a standard target.

@caitp
Copy link
Contributor Author

caitp commented Oct 3, 2017

Fine with me, or if you’d like to manually remove the last 2 commits thats fine too.

@caitp
Copy link
Contributor Author

caitp commented Oct 3, 2017

Also, this should wait for the actual change to the proposal to make sure it’s correct

@leobalter
Copy link
Member

Also, this should wait for the actual change to the proposal to make sure it’s correct

The respective PR already reached consensus, there's no need to wait as the test can be helpful if any implementor wants to run close to the contents release. This is a similar behavior of stage 3 proposals that are not part of the last specs draft.

cc @bterlson, as the spec editor, do you have any objection to tests for "has consensus" PRs being merged before ecma262?

Update behaviour based on changes from tc39/ecma262#988.
The actual spec change PR for async iteration is not yet uploaded.

This does not include any changes to Async-from-Sync Iterator.
@caitp
Copy link
Contributor Author

caitp commented Oct 4, 2017

@leobalter the thing is that I am just guessing at the details of what will actually be changed :p I think it's very likely that this will end up being correct, but it's still unknown at this point. Maybe you guys that were actually sitting in the room discussing it can say for sure.

@leobalter
Copy link
Member

the label flagging consensus without anything else written in the PR reflects it was resolved without modifications. We should release the meeting notes at the end of the day tomorrow.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants