174216 2017-07-06 14:12:22 -0700 Update DOMException to the latest spec 2017-07-20 19:10:43 -0700 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit Bindings Safari Technology Preview Unspecified Unspecified REOPENED P2 Normal --- 174702 174597 174603 174630 1 d webkit-unassigned annevk cdumez oldest_to_newest 1326176 0 d 2017-07-06 14:12:22 -0700 For years the spec for DOMException has not matched what was implemented. We recently fixed this by converging on the majority behavior, in https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/378. Failing-in-Safari tests are available at: - http://w3c-test.org/WebIDL/ecmascript-binding/es-exceptions/DOMException-constructor-behavior.any.html - http://w3c-test.org/WebIDL/ecmascript-binding/es-exceptions/DOMException-constructor-behavior.any.html - http://w3c-test.org/WebIDL/ecmascript-binding/es-exceptions/exceptions.html The spec is at: - https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#idl-DOMException - https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#idl-DOMException The following changes appear to be necessary to conform to the current spec: - Use getters on the prototype instead of own data properties for message/code/name. - Removing the toString() method and letting the default Error.prototype.toString() show through. - ("should", not "must") capturing stack traces for DOMExceptions, like for other Error classes. 1328739 1 annevk 2017-07-14 06:26:10 -0700 https://w3c-test.org/url/urlsearchparams-constructor.html also changed because of this. 1330830 2 cdumez 2017-07-20 16:44:45 -0700 Fixed in dependency bugs. 1330833 3 d 2017-07-20 16:47:01 -0700 Any interest in fixing the stack issue? I didn't see that in the dependency bugs. 1330835 4 cdumez 2017-07-20 16:54:31 -0700 (In reply to Domenic Denicola from comment #3) > Any interest in fixing the stack issue? I didn't see that in the dependency > bugs. What stack issue? Is this covered by a web platform test? 1330838 5 d 2017-07-20 17:02:14 -0700 The > - ("should", not "must") capturing stack traces for DOMExceptions, like for other Error classes. And yeah, it's the last test in http://w3c-test.org/WebIDL/ecmascript-binding/es-exceptions/DOMException-custom-bindings.any.html 1330888 6 cdumez 2017-07-20 19:08:15 -0700 (In reply to Domenic Denicola from comment #5) > The > > > - ("should", not "must") capturing stack traces for DOMExceptions, like for other Error classes. > > And yeah, it's the last test in > http://w3c-test.org/WebIDL/ecmascript-binding/es-exceptions/DOMException- > custom-bindings.any.html Oh, I see. This does not sound super useful to me and is annoying to implement. I think I'll leave as is for now. 1330890 7 cdumez 2017-07-20 19:10:43 -0700 (In reply to Chris Dumez from comment #6) > (In reply to Domenic Denicola from comment #5) > > The > > > > > - ("should", not "must") capturing stack traces for DOMExceptions, like for other Error classes. > > > > And yeah, it's the last test in > > http://w3c-test.org/WebIDL/ecmascript-binding/es-exceptions/DOMException- > > custom-bindings.any.html > > Oh, I see. This does not sound super useful to me and is annoying to > implement. I think I'll leave as is for now. But I filed https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174702.