The Tor Browser / file comparison
comparison: js/src/tests/ecma_3/Array/regress-130451.js
js/src/tests/ecma_3/Array/regress-130451.js
- branch
- TOR_BUG_3246
- changeset 7
- 129ffea94266
equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
| -1:000000000000 | 0:bc333c424759 |
|---|---|
| 1 /* -*- Mode: C++; tab-width: 2; indent-tabs-mode: nil; c-basic-offset: 2 -*- */ | |
| 2 /* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public | |
| 3 * License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this | |
| 4 * file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. */ | |
| 5 | |
| 6 /* | |
| 7 * | |
| 8 * Date: 25 Mar 2002 | |
| 9 * SUMMARY: Array.prototype.sort() should not (re-)define .length | |
| 10 * See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=130451 | |
| 11 * | |
| 12 * From the ECMA-262 Edition 3 Final spec: | |
| 13 * | |
| 14 * NOTE: The sort function is intentionally generic; it does not require that | |
| 15 * its |this| value be an Array object. Therefore, it can be transferred to | |
| 16 * other kinds of objects for use as a method. Whether the sort function can | |
| 17 * be applied successfully to a host object is implementation-dependent. | |
| 18 * | |
| 19 * The interesting parts of this testcase are the contrasting expectations for | |
| 20 * Brendan's test below, when applied to Array objects vs. non-Array objects. | |
| 21 * | |
| 22 */ | |
| 23 //----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| 24 var UBound = 0; | |
| 25 var BUGNUMBER = 130451; | |
| 26 var summary = 'Array.prototype.sort() should not (re-)define .length'; | |
| 27 var status = ''; | |
| 28 var statusitems = []; | |
| 29 var actual = ''; | |
| 30 var actualvalues = []; | |
| 31 var expect= ''; | |
| 32 var expectedvalues = []; | |
| 33 var arr = []; | |
| 34 var cmp = new Function(); | |
| 35 | |
| 36 | |
| 37 /* | |
| 38 * First: test Array.prototype.sort() on Array objects | |
| 39 */ | |
| 40 status = inSection(1); | |
| 41 arr = [0,1,2,3]; | |
| 42 cmp = function(x,y) {return x-y;}; | |
| 43 actual = arr.sort(cmp).length; | |
| 44 expect = 4; | |
| 45 addThis(); | |
| 46 | |
| 47 status = inSection(2); | |
| 48 arr = [0,1,2,3]; | |
| 49 cmp = function(x,y) {return y-x;}; | |
| 50 actual = arr.sort(cmp).length; | |
| 51 expect = 4; | |
| 52 addThis(); | |
| 53 | |
| 54 status = inSection(3); | |
| 55 arr = [0,1,2,3]; | |
| 56 cmp = function(x,y) {return x-y;}; | |
| 57 arr.length = 1; | |
| 58 actual = arr.sort(cmp).length; | |
| 59 expect = 1; | |
| 60 addThis(); | |
| 61 | |
| 62 /* | |
| 63 * This test is by Brendan. Setting arr.length to | |
| 64 * 2 and then 4 should cause elements to be deleted. | |
| 65 */ | |
| 66 arr = [0,1,2,3]; | |
| 67 cmp = function(x,y) {return x-y;}; | |
| 68 arr.sort(cmp); | |
| 69 | |
| 70 status = inSection(4); | |
| 71 actual = arr.join(); | |
| 72 expect = '0,1,2,3'; | |
| 73 addThis(); | |
| 74 | |
| 75 status = inSection(5); | |
| 76 actual = arr.length; | |
| 77 expect = 4; | |
| 78 addThis(); | |
| 79 | |
| 80 status = inSection(6); | |
| 81 arr.length = 2; | |
| 82 actual = arr.join(); | |
| 83 expect = '0,1'; | |
| 84 addThis(); | |
| 85 | |
| 86 status = inSection(7); | |
| 87 arr.length = 4; | |
| 88 actual = arr.join(); | |
| 89 expect = '0,1,,'; //<---- see how 2,3 have been lost | |
| 90 addThis(); | |
| 91 | |
| 92 | |
| 93 | |
| 94 /* | |
| 95 * Now test Array.prototype.sort() on non-Array objects | |
| 96 */ | |
| 97 status = inSection(8); | |
| 98 var obj = new Object(); | |
| 99 obj.sort = Array.prototype.sort; | |
| 100 obj.length = 4; | |
| 101 obj[0] = 0; | |
| 102 obj[1] = 1; | |
| 103 obj[2] = 2; | |
| 104 obj[3] = 3; | |
| 105 cmp = function(x,y) {return x-y;}; | |
| 106 actual = obj.sort(cmp).length; | |
| 107 expect = 4; | |
| 108 addThis(); | |
| 109 | |
| 110 | |
| 111 /* | |
| 112 * Here again is Brendan's test. Unlike the array case | |
| 113 * above, the setting of obj.length to 2 and then 4 | |
| 114 * should NOT cause elements to be deleted | |
| 115 */ | |
| 116 obj = new Object(); | |
| 117 obj.sort = Array.prototype.sort; | |
| 118 obj.length = 4; | |
| 119 obj[0] = 3; | |
| 120 obj[1] = 2; | |
| 121 obj[2] = 1; | |
| 122 obj[3] = 0; | |
| 123 cmp = function(x,y) {return x-y;}; | |
| 124 obj.sort(cmp); //<---- this is what triggered the buggy behavior below | |
| 125 obj.join = Array.prototype.join; | |
| 126 | |
| 127 status = inSection(9); | |
| 128 actual = obj.join(); | |
| 129 expect = '0,1,2,3'; | |
| 130 addThis(); | |
| 131 | |
| 132 status = inSection(10); | |
| 133 actual = obj.length; | |
| 134 expect = 4; | |
| 135 addThis(); | |
| 136 | |
| 137 status = inSection(11); | |
| 138 obj.length = 2; | |
| 139 actual = obj.join(); | |
| 140 expect = '0,1'; | |
| 141 addThis(); | |
| 142 | |
| 143 /* | |
| 144 * Before this bug was fixed, |actual| held the value '0,1,,' | |
| 145 * as in the Array-object case at top. This bug only occurred | |
| 146 * if Array.prototype.sort() had been applied to |obj|, | |
| 147 * as we have done higher up. | |
| 148 */ | |
| 149 status = inSection(12); | |
| 150 obj.length = 4; | |
| 151 actual = obj.join(); | |
| 152 expect = '0,1,2,3'; | |
| 153 addThis(); | |
| 154 | |
| 155 | |
| 156 | |
| 157 | |
| 158 //----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| 159 test(); | |
| 160 //----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| 161 | |
| 162 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 function addThis() | |
| 165 { | |
| 166 statusitems[UBound] = status; | |
| 167 actualvalues[UBound] = actual; | |
| 168 expectedvalues[UBound] = expect; | |
| 169 UBound++; | |
| 170 } | |
| 171 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 function test() | |
| 174 { | |
| 175 enterFunc('test'); | |
| 176 printBugNumber(BUGNUMBER); | |
| 177 printStatus(summary); | |
| 178 | |
| 179 for (var i=0; i<UBound; i++) | |
| 180 { | |
| 181 reportCompare(expectedvalues[i], actualvalues[i], statusitems[i]); | |
| 182 } | |
| 183 | |
| 184 exitFunc ('test'); | |
| 185 } |
