Update test262 status

[ptomato]

Since nobody complained about the last time I updated and replaced the link to a tests PR with the test262 feature flag, let's do it now for all the proposals.

(There isn't really a 1:1 correspondence between tests for one proposal and one pull request, so my hope is that listing the feature flag is more helpful than a link to a PR or search results.)

[ljharb]

Would it be possible to, instead of the check emoji, have just the feature name, as a link that goes somewhere useful inside test262?

[ptomato]

Do you have a suggestion for what a useful link might be? The best idea I have so far is a link to a code search for "features" plus the feature name, e.g. https://github.com/tc39/test262/search?q=features+symbols-as-weakmap-keys, but that doesn't seem that useful.

[ljharb]

That seems useful enough to me - at least it immediately highlights what it is, that it's a "feature", and what might be included.

[leobalter]

Small suggestion: I'd leave the "features" keyword out of the search and have only the search for the actual feature tag.

https://github.com/tc39/test262/search?q=symbols-as-weakmap-keys results are slightly more meaningful.

[ptomato]

Odd, those two searches show exactly the same set of results for me, just with slightly different highlighting. I hope GitHub is not showing different results based on an account's search history.

I was thinking "features" would be better for feature tags that are named the same as the string that might show up in code (like "features WeakRef" which omits several irrelevant results that "WeakRef" includes.)

[ljharb]

It’s something we can iterate on; I’m content with either choice for now, so we could land the larger refactor :-)

[leobalter]

I'm fine either way, I'm not asking anything but suggesting as I'd personally prefer focusing on the highlighted content.

For WeakRef, technically I'd want all the test files containing WeakRef. I'd find it very odd finding a file that uses WeakRef but skips the features tag in Test262.

[ptomato]

I'll try to update this today.

FWIW, the files in the WeakRef search that I felt were irrelevant are in docs, harness files, and implementation-contributed tests, as well as one test where I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be correct to have WeakRef in the features tag. The first two I realized of course we can skip by restricting the search to JS files, which I'll certainly do. I wish GitHub code search would let us search only in certain paths, to exclude the implementation-contributed and harness files.

[ptomato]

This is a good enough start, I think. If the code searches turn out to be annoying, there are other code searches like https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+repo:tc39/test262+file:test/+%5CbWeakRef%5Cb+lang:JavaScript&patternType=regexp&case=yes

[ptomato]

There were no objections so far :smile:

I've rebased and updated this to the latest status.