merge immutable-arraybuffer tests

[phoddie]

Suite of test262 tests for the Immutable ArrayBuffer proposal.

[gibson042]

@phoddie This is pretty noisy right now; please fix the lint issues:

• Add necessary front matter fields
• Update features.txt
• Fix the copyrights to a single year rather than a range
• etc.

[phoddie]

Sure, will do. FWIW – "Fix the copyrights to a single year rather than a range" feels artificial.

[ljharb]

It's not; it ensures that the range doesn't need to be updated every year.

[gibson042]

Rebasing on main will also get the annotation improvements from #4449.

[phoddie]

It's not; it ensures that the range doesn't need to be updated every year

??? The range only needs to be updated in years when the tests are modified, not when the calendar advances. Anyway. I will change the tests to conform with this peculiar requirement.

[phoddie]

The linter is now happy and I've attempted to resolve all comments.

[gibson042]

I am a champion of the proposal and will not formally approve this PR would appreciate attention from other maintainers, but I have reviewed it and confirmed consistency with the proposal. Followups are expected to cover error handling and ArrayBuffer.prototype.sliceToImmutable, but this LGTM.

[gibson042]

Nit:

Suggested change

	var immutable = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(
	ArrayBuffer.prototype, "immutable"
	);
	var getter = immutable.get;
	var getter = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(
	ArrayBuffer.prototype, "immutable"
	).get;

[gibson042]

Nit:

Suggested change

	var immutable = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(
	ArrayBuffer.prototype, "immutable"
	);
	var getter = immutable.get;
	var getter = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(
	ArrayBuffer.prototype, "immutable"
	).get;

[anba]

There is still a bit of missing coverage:

ArrayBuffer.prototype.sliceToImmutable

• Missing coverage.

Atomics

• Missing coverage.

ArrayBuffer.prototype.resize
ArrayBuffer.prototype.slice
ArrayBuffer.prototype.transfer
ArrayBuffer.prototype.transferToFixedLength
ArrayBuffer.prototype.transferToImmutable

• Ensure throws with immutable ArrayBuffer.

ArrayBuffer.prototype.byteLength
ArrayBuffer.prototype.detached
ArrayBuffer.prototype.maxByteLength
ArrayBuffer.prototype.resizable

• Explicit tests calling with immutable ArrayBuffer instead of just as part of other tests?

DataView:

• Use throwing conversion to ensure TypeError is thrown before coercing index parameter.

%TypedArray%.prototype.filter
%TypedArray%.prototype.map
%TypedArray%.prototype.slice
%TypedArray%.prototype.subarray

• Species create returning TypedArray with immutable ArrayBuffer.

%TypedArray%.from
%TypedArray%.of

• Constructor returns TypedArray with immutable ArrayBuffer.

%TypedArray%.prototype.subarray

• Throws for immutable TypedArray before coercing offset parameter.

TypedArray [[Set]] coverage:

• Add Reflect.set coverage.
• Ensure no value coercion for immutable TypedArrays.
• Ensure correct behaviour when receiver isn't the current object.
• Test out-bounds indices.

[anba]

Suggested change

	sample.setFloat16(0, 0n);
	sample.setFloat16(0, 0);

[anba]

Suggested change

	sample.setFloat32(0, 0n);
	sample.setFloat32(0, 0);

[anba]

Suggested change

	sample.setFloat64(0, 0n);
	sample.setFloat64(0, 0);

[anba]

Suggested change

	sample.setInt16(0, 0n);
	sample.setInt16(0, 0);

[anba]

Suggested change

	sample.setInt32(0, 0n);
	sample.setInt32(0, 0);

[anba]

Suggested change

	Reflect.defineProperty(sample, "0", desc);
	Object.defineProperty(sample, "0", desc);

Because Reflect.defineProperty returns false on failure. But also add a separate test for Reflect.defineProperty. And add coverage when desc has the current property descriptor attributes. For example:

js> ta = new Int8Array(new ArrayBuffer(1).transferToImmutable())
({0:0})
js> Reflect.defineProperty(ta, 0, {})
true
js> Reflect.defineProperty(ta, 0, {writable: false})
true
js> Reflect.defineProperty(ta, 0, {writable: true})
false
js> Reflect.defineProperty(ta, 0, {value: 1})
false
js> Reflect.defineProperty(ta, 0, {value: 0})
true
js> Reflect.defineProperty(ta, 0, {value: 0, writable: false, enumerable: true, configurable: false})
true
js> Reflect.defineProperty(ta, 0, {value: 1, writable: false, enumerable: true, configurable: false})
false

And probably also for floating point special cases NaN or -0 to ensure SameValue semantics are used:

js> ta = new Float64Array(new Float64Array([NaN]).buffer.transferToImmutable())
({0:NaN})
js> Reflect.defineProperty(ta, 0, {value: NaN})
true

js> ta = new Float64Array(new Float64Array([-0]).buffer.transferToImmutable())
({0:-0})
js> Reflect.defineProperty(ta, 0, {value: -0})
true
js> Reflect.defineProperty(ta, 0, {value: +0})
false

[anba]

Suggested change

	description: Reflect.defineProperty throws on indexed property if buffer is immutable
	description: Object.defineProperty throws on indexed property if buffer is immutable

[anba]

Suggested change

	features: [Reflect, TypedArray, immutable-arraybuffer]
	features: [TypedArray, immutable-arraybuffer]

[anba]

Missing flags: [onlyStrict]. But please also add a flags: [noStrict] test which ensure no TypeError is thrown.

[anba]

Also assert assert.sameValue(sample[0], 0) to ensure no modification took place.

[ptomato]

Thanks for the review @anba. This is very helpful.

I'd prefer not to make this PR any bigger so let's not fix the missing coverage here, instead please consider opening an issue with a testing plan.

[phoddie]

The helpful feedback from @anba have been applied.

As per discussion with @gibson042, we'll break this up into multiple PRs based on the test plan, when available.