2025-04-04 [09:35:49.0819] can I get a quick review of https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/4449 (updates some non-JS linting/CI infrastructure)? [09:43:18.0520] lgtm 2025-04-08 [12:21:27.0003] I guess we have the keys to eshost now? does anyone feel qualified to review this? https://github.com/tc39/eshost/pull/139 [12:23:31.0542] (and maybe we should go over the open PRs, merge any that make sense, and make a release. I see most of them are from dependabot) [13:07:37.0917] > I guess we have the keys to eshost now? 🥳 review also requested for https://github.com/tc39/eshost/pull/138 [13:12:29.0791] thought I'd previously reviewed that one! [13:17:17.0819] I couldn't review it because I couldn't get Hermes for me locally [13:17:30.0057] but I can hit merge now 😄 [14:13:49.0489] I wrote rudimentary support for boa in eshost: https://github.com/tc39/eshost/pull/147 [16:47:22.0059] I presented [this deck](https://ptomato.name/talks/tc39-2025-04/#8) in TG2 a few months ago and I thought I'd put it on the agenda for this upcoming TG1. seems relevant now in light of https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/4447 2025-04-13 [16:14:54.0115] PFC is down for 5m 262 report tomorrow. lmk if delta [16:15:04.0479] * PFC is down for 5m test262 report tomorrow. lmk if delta 2025-04-14 [13:28:38.0099] since I mentioned the testing plan guidance in the plenary today, I think we should rescue it from review oblivion and merge it. Ioanna doesn't really have time to work on it right now so I fixed the typos and added a callout to it in `CONTRIBUTING.md`. please have a look https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/4113 2025-04-22 [16:25:40.0112] do staging tests count for proposals? i suspect not [16:25:51.0225] for stage 3 yes [16:25:52.0279] for stage 4 no 2025-04-23 [21:51:08.0985] why would they count differently? [21:51:50.0049] the whole point of 2.7 is that's when the tests go in, and things in staging aren't ready to be ran across engines, that's the whole point of the reduced review requirement as i understand it [21:52:07.0069] iow i don't see how "sufficient testing" can be satisfied with anything in staging [05:01:15.0607] Staging is very much intended to be run across engines [07:24:32.0059] the whole point of staging is to run across engines [07:24:46.0897] we've discussed this in the past when clarifying staging, like you and i specifically jordan [07:25:42.0439] https://github.com/tc39/test262/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#staging [08:02:12.0867] I guess the thinking is that staging is best-effort coverage merged ASAP and we don't review it for the level of coverage or organization that would be required for stage 4 [08:02:29.0681] Richard Gibson: you joining today? [08:08:52.0008] late notice, but no, I can't make it today [08:28:14.0252] ok, fair point about running across engines. but the coverage requirement is for 3, not 4, as i read it [08:45:01.0423] staging pre-dates stage 2.7 being a thing [08:45:26.0214] i don't think there is a committee-wide shared understanding of "sufficient testing", so it may be worth discussing what amount of coverage the maintainers expect for stage 3 advancement [08:45:44.0299] my feedback as an implementer is i want the tests merged so i can run them [08:46:25.0467] recall the original impetus was after Google stopped contractin Bocoup and Igalia to write test262 tests, we had a period where we were implementing features during stage 3 without any test262 tests [08:46:59.0813] and staging was a way to lower the friction of contribution so that whatever tests implementers wrote themselves can land in test262 and benefit other implementations as well [08:47:12.0346] * recall the original impetus was after Google stopped contracting Bocoup and Igalia to write test262 tests, we had a period where we were implementing features during stage 3 without any test262 tests [10:24:10.0352] sure, i like what staging allows for [10:29:43.0937] @shuyuguo:matrix.org when introducing 2.7, we briefly discussed that if it wasn't obvious, we would try to define what "sufficient" meant when a proposal advances to 2.7 so the champion knew what was expected of them for Stage 3 [10:30:57.0220] have we ever done that since 2.7 was introduced? [10:33:24.0143] I feel like we did once? I can't quite remember though [10:43:21.0438] most of the time, i don't think the committee will know what "sufficient" means either [10:49:26.0983] I think most of the time, it's as simple as "any relevant syntax, semantics, and interactions with other language features are fully described as test262 tests, as far as we're aware" [10:49:43.0055] it gets complicated when we're unsure about web compatibility or implementability [10:50:18.0688] * I think most of the time, it's as simple as "any relevant syntax, semantics, and interactions with other language features are fully exercised in test262 tests, as far as we're aware" [10:50:47.0356] * I think most of the time, it's as simple as "any relevant syntax, semantics, and interactions with other language features are exercised in test262 tests to the extent that we can think of them" [10:53:57.0052] "relevant" and "interactions" are doing a lot of heavy lifting there [10:54:09.0354] i do not think it's simple even most of the time, except for self-contained methods