https://codereview.chromium.org/1230793002/diff/40001/test/cctest/test-api.cc
File test/cctest/test-api.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/1230793002/diff/40001/test/cctest/test-api.cc#newcode21910
test/cctest/test-api.cc:21910: Local<Value> result2 =
CompileRun("[].concat([global, global], protected)");
On 2015/07/09 15:56:04, adamk wrote:
On 2015/07/09 at 14:49:41, caitp wrote:
> This is probably not doing what I want it to do
>
> I would like context 1 to attempt to pass an array from context 2 to
ArrayConcat() --- and the spreading should occur because the value is
an Array,
and regardless of whether @@isConcatSpreadable is set to undefined or
not.
>
> The API is sort of confusing so I'm not totally sure how to simulate
that.
Is the idea just to check that the check is doing IsJSArray() instead
of
instanceof? That seems like a separate concern from the security check
test case
going on here.
Per spec, if @@isConcatSpreadable is undefined, but the value is an
exotic Array object (or a real subclass), the value is always spread ---
so EG, a cross-origin Elements object would be spread due to subclassing
Array.
So I just want to also assert that, even though the @@isConcatSpreadable
value is ignored, it will still perform the spread for a cross-origin
exotic Array object
https://codereview.chromium.org/1230793002/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
