Philip Chimento

tc39/proposal-temporal#2165 is closed, resolved in such a way that makes these tests valid. I think this can be closed.

@rwaldron Mind if I take on updating this to the version of the proposal that eventually reached stage 3?

> > tainted callbackfns (throwing an exception). > > Do we have to? Would be nice, but as with the other suggestions I don't see a need to block this...

And then, some random ideas that I have so far: For (3), maybe it could be replaced by a `compareArrayElementsWith` helper that takes the two arrays and applies a supplied...

In the end this was covered by https://github.com/tc39/test262/pull/3657, so it can be closed. I'd love to discuss having more facilities for table-driven tests, as a lot of Temporal and also...

I think this is an issue with the Temporal proposal, not with the tests: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/issues/1924

Thanks for getting this started! FWIW, I've been finding it easier to write tests by topic, rather than by API entrypoint — for example, here are a series of largely...

@jugglinmike For one thing, we're planning to deprecate that NPM module... An advantage to keeping it in the proposal repository is that we have code coverage metrics for the test262...

I left one comment in #3049 but it could simplify things in all of these pull requests: > Consider porting over the [Temporal asserts](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal/blob/main/polyfill/test/helpers/temporalHelpers.js#L17-L118) from the proposal repo to [`temporalHelpers.js`](https://github.com/tc39/test262/blob/main/harness/temporalHelpers.js)...

@jugglinmike I do think it would've been more convenient to develop these in the proposal-temporal repo in order to get code coverage metrics, and then move them over to the...