Fix bug introduced by EpochNanoseconds + adjust tests to catch better#128
Merged
Conversation
jasonwilliams
approved these changes
Dec 8, 2024
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes a bug that was introduced by #116.
General gist is that the in the proposal
5.5.4 ISODateTimeWithinLimits ( isoDateTime )there is a call toGetUTCEpochNanoseconds. However, this value is not checked to be valid, and instead of constraining to the NS_MAX_INSTANT/NS_MIN_INSTANT +/- NS_PER_DAY, respectively, we were constraining to NS_MAX_INSTANT/NS_MIN_INSTANT.There was a limit test on datetime, but we were only asserting the negative case, not the positive case, so the regression was not caught.
So adjusted to handle the potentially invalid value, adjusted the preexisting datetime test, and added a date limit test based off the test262 limit test.
EDIT: Potentially relevant context to #119