Fixing timezone issues with date-time/parse-* tests.

Fixing timezone issues with date-time/parse-* tests.

BUG=2919
TEST=All tests passing when local timezone was set to EST.
R=mnita@google.com, titzer@chromium.org

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=17148

[Nebojša Ćirić, 2013-10-04 17:55:04]

This will make the tests stable. I tested it with local timezone set to EST and
they work.

[Nebojša Ćirić, 2013-10-07 23:12:54]

On 2013/10/04 17:55:04, Nebojša Ćirić wrote:
> This will make the tests stable. I tested it with local timezone set to EST
and
> they work.

Ping anybody?

[Nebojša Ćirić, 2013-10-08 16:51:12]

This time real Jochen :)

[mnita, 2013-10-08 20:04:40]

lgtm

Two files use non-UTC methods to access date fields.
Nothing wrong, but probably nicer to be consistent.

https://codereview.chromium.org/25855005/diff/3001/test/intl/date-format/pars...
File test/intl/date-format/parse-MMMdy.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/25855005/diff/3001/test/intl/date-format/pars...
test/intl/date-format/parse-MMMdy.js:40: assertEquals(1974, date.getFullYear());
Should we go with UTC fields, for consistency?

https://codereview.chromium.org/25855005/diff/3001/test/intl/date-format/pars...
File test/intl/date-format/parse-mdy.js (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/25855005/diff/3001/test/intl/date-format/pars...
test/intl/date-format/parse-mdy.js:31: assertEquals(1974, date.getFullYear());
Should we go with UTC fields, for consistency?

[Nebojša Ćirić, 2013-10-08 21:14:07]

I wanted to test non-UTC time zone for better code coverage.
Also, this is February so we shouldn't have failures due to the DST changes.

I'll keep non-UTC methods in those files.

On 2013/10/08 20:04:40, mnita wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> Two files use non-UTC methods to access date fields.
> Nothing wrong, but probably nicer to be consistent.
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/25855005/diff/3001/test/intl/date-format/pars...
> File test/intl/date-format/parse-MMMdy.js (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/25855005/diff/3001/test/intl/date-format/pars...
> test/intl/date-format/parse-MMMdy.js:40: assertEquals(1974,
date.getFullYear());
> Should we go with UTC fields, for consistency?
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/25855005/diff/3001/test/intl/date-format/pars...
> File test/intl/date-format/parse-mdy.js (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/25855005/diff/3001/test/intl/date-format/pars...
> test/intl/date-format/parse-mdy.js:31: assertEquals(1974, date.getFullYear());
> Should we go with UTC fields, for consistency?

[titzer, 2013-10-10 09:38:13]

lgtm

[Nebojša Ćirić, 2013-10-10 17:54:41]

Committed patchset #2 manually as r17148 (presubmit successful).