According wpt tests, ReadableStream et al interfaces are not perfectly aligned with the test/spec
Created attachment 283886 [details] Patch
Created attachment 283887 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 283887 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=283887&action=review It’s surprising none of these are enumerable. Is this some kind of new trend in modern DOM APIs? > Source/WebCore/Modules/streams/ReadableStream.js:108 > + const options = (arguments.length > 1) ? arguments[1] : @undefined; How is this different from: const options = arguments[1]; I don’t understand how the explicit length check has any effect.
(In reply to comment #3) > Comment on attachment 283887 [details] > Patch > > View in context: > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=283887&action=review > > It’s surprising none of these are enumerable. Is this some kind of new trend > in modern DOM APIs? WebIDL is prescribing enumerable attributes/functions. JavaScript APIs are mostly not-enumerable AFAIK. This is the case for promises and arrays for instance. I also think that JS classes functions are not enumerable as well. > > Source/WebCore/Modules/streams/ReadableStream.js:108 > > + const options = (arguments.length > 1) ? arguments[1] : @undefined; > > How is this different from: > > const options = arguments[1]; > > I don’t understand how the explicit length check has any effect. Right, I removed the check.
Created attachment 283983 [details] Patch for landing
Comment on attachment 283983 [details] Patch for landing Clearing flags on attachment: 283983 Committed r203402: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/203402>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.