I’ve opened a number of minor, mostly-editorial issues on the proposal. In general, how much more work you need to do depends on how many stages you and your TC39 champion (who is it, by the way?) plan to advance the proposal at the next meeting. Looking through https://tc39.github.io/process-document/ I’d say:
· For stage 1: o You need to identify your TC39 champion (it should probably be in the document header) o You need to identify potential cross-cutting concerns. For example, one might be “should there be a Reflect.getOwnPropertyDescriptors”? (to which my answer is no, but it should be included.) · For stage 2: o Fix the editorial bugs in the spec text. · For stage 3: o Identify designated reviewers and have them sign off. o Get Brian to sign off. · For stage 4: o Write full tests, covering symbols, data descriptors of every variation, accessors of every variation (get, get/set, set), throwing getters, and proxies with throwing and inconsistent getOwnProperty and ownPropertyKeys traps. (The proxies cases might not be necessary.) From: es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrea Giammarchi Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 14:50 To: Mathias Bynens <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors still at stage 0 Dear all, the current proposal is here https://github.com/WebReflection/Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors#objectgetownpropertydescriptors-proposal It has been mostly copied, as suggested, from https://github.com/tc39/Array.prototype.includes It has a reference implemntation: https://github.com/WebReflection/Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors/blob/master/reference-implementation/index.js#L12-L68 It has at least one test: https://github.com/WebReflection/Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors/blob/master/test/built-ins/Object/getOwnPropertyDescriptors/has-accessors.js I wonder if there is a specific amount of tests I should cover, right now I just cover the fact it works and it does not ignore accessors. Woudl a test for symbols and one for data descriptors be enough to move forward? Thanks. On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Mathias Bynens <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Do you (or anyone else) know if that should be filed as a PR to tc39/ecma262 > or if it should just be a repository eventually posted in here? It should be a repository that can eventually move to the tc39 organization if all goes well. Good luck!
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
