assert await precedence
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- JavaScript
- Stars
- 2.8k
- Forks
- 564
- Avg merge
- 3d 7h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 10
Description
Capturing a convo from irc #tc39:
[17:55] <+ljharb> what's the correct precedence of
awaithere? https://github.com/babel/babili/issues/460#issue-212303898
[17:55] <+ljharb> isawait a || bthe same as(await a) || b, orawait (a || b)?
[18:16] <+bradleymeck> ljharb: https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-unary-operators same level as delete / typeof
[19:15] <+ljharb> bradleymeck: ok, so that means the former?[19:20] <+bterlson> it's the former
[19:20] <+bterlson> yield precedence is the latter
I would like to investigate if we cover this precedence. If not, we should add a test for this.
cc @ljharb
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by searching the test suite for existing coverage of await, logical-or, and operator precedence, then compare it with the ECMAScript unary-operator precedence described in the issue and the linked discussion. Done means confirming whether await a || b is covered and adding a test if it is not.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- javascript
- Domain
- testing
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100