html: Add tests to verify BigInt structured clone integration #9565
Conversation
This file contains 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
littledan
added a commit
to littledan/html
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 17, 2018
The goal of this PR is to integrate BigInt with HTML serialization. It seems that all primitives are already serialized and deserialized in the current specification, so this patch only adds serialization for BigInt wrappers. Note that BigInt, like (the unserializable) Symbol does not have a new-able constructor: use of wrappers is explicitly discouraged by the specification. Nevertheless, this patch adds serialization support for consistency with other wrappers. web-platform-tests against postMessage on BigInt are out for review in web-platform-tests/wpt#9565
|
It might be good to put this in a separate file, if it's not too much trouble, so that browsers which don't implement the new syntax don't start suddenly failing all existing tests due to a SyntaxError in the same file. |
Build PASSEDStarted: 2018-02-26 09:20:19 View more information about this build on: |
littledan
added a commit
to littledan/html
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 17, 2018
The goal of this PR is to integrate BigInt with HTML serialization. This patch - Adds BigInt to the "safe list" of primitives permitted for serialization. - Adds serialization of BigInt wrappers, analogous to other wrappers. Note that BigInt, like (the unserializable) Symbol does not have a new-able constructor: use of wrappers is explicitly discouraged by the specification. Nevertheless, this patch adds serialization support for consistency with other wrappers. web-platform-tests against postMessage on BigInt are out for review in web-platform-tests/wpt#9565
littledan
added a commit
to littledan/html
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 18, 2018
The goal of this PR is to integrate BigInt with HTML serialization. This patch - Adds BigInt to the "safe list" of primitives permitted for serialization. - Adds serialization of BigInt wrappers, analogous to other wrappers. Note that BigInt, like (the unserializable) Symbol does not have a new-able constructor: use of wrappers is explicitly discouraged by the specification. Nevertheless, this patch adds serialization support for consistency with other wrappers. web-platform-tests against postMessage on BigInt are out for review in web-platform-tests/wpt#9565
littledan
force-pushed
the
bigint-serialize
branch
from
4307bce
to
44377c5
Compare
|
@domenic Good idea, split out into a separate file. |
littledan
added a commit
to littledan/html
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 18, 2018
The goal of this PR is to integrate BigInt with HTML serialization. This patch - Adds BigInt to the "safe list" of primitives permitted for serialization. - Adds serialization of BigInt wrappers, analogous to other wrappers. Note that BigInt, like (the unserializable) Symbol does not have a new-able constructor: use of wrappers is explicitly discouraged by the specification. Nevertheless, this patch adds serialization support for consistency with other wrappers. web-platform-tests against postMessage on BigInt are out for review in web-platform-tests/wpt#9565
|
These tests are missing verification that BigInt and BigInt wrappers can be used as IndexedDB values (but not (yet) keys), although the PR in whatwg/html#3480 permits them to be used as such. The testing will come in a separate PR (once I figure out any other changes for BigInt that IndexedDB might need). |
littledan
added a commit
to littledan/html
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 22, 2018
The goal of this PR is to integrate BigInt with HTML serialization. This patch - Adds BigInt to the "safe list" of primitives permitted for serialization. - Adds serialization of BigInt wrappers, analogous to other wrappers. Note that BigInt, like (the unserializable) Symbol does not have a new-able constructor: use of wrappers is explicitly discouraged by the specification. Nevertheless, this patch adds serialization support for consistency with other wrappers. web-platform-tests against postMessage on BigInt are out for review in web-platform-tests/wpt#9565
littledan
added a commit
to littledan/html
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2018
The goal of this PR is to integrate BigInt with HTML serialization. This patch - Adds BigInt to the "safe list" of primitives permitted for serialization. - Adds serialization of BigInt wrappers, analogous to other wrappers. Note that BigInt, like (the unserializable) Symbol does not have a new-able constructor: use of wrappers is explicitly discouraged by the specification. Nevertheless, this patch adds serialization support for consistency with other wrappers. web-platform-tests against postMessage on BigInt are out for review in web-platform-tests/wpt#9565
domenic
pushed a commit
to whatwg/html
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2018
* Adds BigInt to the safelist of primitives permitted for serialization * Adds serialization of BigInt wrappers, analogous to other wrappers Tests: web-platform-tests/wpt#9565
domenic
approved these changes
Feb 26, 2018
| <head> | ||
| <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" /> | ||
| <title>2.7 Safe passing of structured data</title> | ||
| <link rel="help" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/common-dom-interfaces.html#safe-passing-of-structured-data" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <script src="/resources/testharness.js"></script> | ||
| <script src="/resources/testharnessreport.js"></script> | ||
| </head> | ||
| <body> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe add a note that this is supposed to be similar to its sibling, but is separate to avoid JS syntax errors? That'll help people who wonder at the strange style of the test.
littledan
force-pushed
the
bigint-serialize
branch
from
44377c5
to
b308163
Compare
|
What's the convention here--should I land this myself now that it's been approved (seems like I have permissions), or wait for a maintainer to land it? |
|
You should feel free to land it yourself in the future. Please do include links to the standard change PR in the commit message as I did when landing. Makes it easier to understand things in the future. |
alice
pushed a commit
to alice/html
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2019
* Adds BigInt to the safelist of primitives permitted for serialization * Adds serialization of BigInt wrappers, analogous to other wrappers Tests: web-platform-tests/wpt#9565
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
These tests are against a PR which has not yet landed: whatwg/html#3480