Add tests for Object.hasOwn

[jamiebuilds]

Proposal: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-accessible-object-hasownproperty

This proposal just reached stage 3, its not currently published in the draft but I've used esid: sec-object.hasown since that's what it's very likely going to end up being.

This PR is largely a copy-and-paste job from the old Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty tests, but I've tried to modernize anything I can.

[nicolo-ribaudo]

I might have missed it while reading the tests, but I think we are not testing the property descriptor of Object.hasOwn (something like https://github.com/tc39/test262/blob/main/test/built-ins/Object/assign/assign-descriptor.js).

feedback addressed

[jamiebuilds]

@nicolo-ribaudo nope didn't have that, added

[jugglinmike]

Thanks for contributing these tests, Jamie!

[rwaldron]

There's a lot of test material here, which I generally really appreciate, but there are things being tested that aren't relevant to property "own"-ness.

[jamiebuilds]

There's a lot of test material here, which I generally really appreciate, but there are things being tested that aren't relevant to property "own"-ness.

I copied I think all of these tests from test/built-ins/Object/prototype/hasOwnProperty, I'm not entirely sure which ones should be removed.

[rwaldron]

Well, then it seems that directory is filled with tests that are irrelevant to "own"-ness. We can deal with that later.

[rwaldron]

Everyone that's reviewed should come back and resolve or re-review for @jamiebuilds

[codehag]

Pinging this, in the hopes that it gets the reviews updated. @jugglinmike i think yours is the only request changes rn?

[jugglinmike]

We're close! It just looks like a couple small bugs slipped in through the latest refactoring.

[jamiebuilds]

Okay @jugglinmike I've updated those test cases, this should now be good to go

[jugglinmike]

Looks good to me! Nice work :)

By the way, the CI failures are about failing tests. We recently configured the system to tolerate test failures, so my guess is that this was caused by the base branch being behind the upstream main branch.