[LayoutTests] Add missing location.valueOf override tests to verify unforgeable behavior

[LayoutTests] Add missing location.valueOf override tests to verify unforgeable behavior
Add few missing tests to verify location.valueOf override.

When used with 'use strict', the override of location.valueOf should throw an exception and not otherwise.

R=jl@opera.com, haraken@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=190411

[vivekg, 2015-02-18 06:37:28]

vivekg@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ vivekg@chromium.org

[vivekg, 2015-02-18 06:37:29]

PTAL, thanks.

[Jens Widell, 2015-02-18 06:44:26]

I don't quite understand why an unforgeable valueOf() is no longer needed. The
linked by says only V8 declares it since JSC handles that particular aspect
using a different mechanism. Can you elaborate?

[Jens Widell, 2015-02-18 06:45:28]

On 2015/02/18 06:44:26, Jens Widell wrote:
> I don't quite understand why an unforgeable valueOf() is no longer needed. The
> linked by says only V8 declares it since JSC handles that particular aspect
> using a different mechanism. Can you elaborate?

"linked by" => "linked bug"

[vivekg, 2015-02-18 06:57:37]

On 2015/02/18 at 06:44:26, jl wrote:
> I don't quite understand why an unforgeable valueOf() is no longer needed. The
linked by says only V8 declares it since JSC handles that particular aspect
using a different mechanism. Can you elaborate?

My bad. Overlooked the [Unforged] attribute. Yes its not correct to allow
modifying the valueOf method. Sorry about the noise.

[vivekg, 2015-02-18 07:00:00]

On 2015/02/18 at 06:57:37, vivekg_ wrote:
> On 2015/02/18 at 06:44:26, jl wrote:
> > I don't quite understand why an unforgeable valueOf() is no longer needed.
The linked by says only V8 declares it since JSC handles that particular aspect
using a different mechanism. Can you elaborate?
> 
> My bad. Overlooked the [Unforged] attribute. Yes its not correct to allow
modifying the valueOf method. Sorry about the noise.

[Unforged] => [Unforgeable]

[vivekg, 2015-02-18 09:04:26]

On 2015/02/18 at 06:44:26, jl wrote:
> I don't quite understand why an unforgeable valueOf() is no longer needed. The
linked by says only V8 declares it since JSC handles that particular aspect
using a different mechanism. Can you elaborate?

This should have been caught by the existing override tests so adding those
missing tests here instead.

Calling the explicit location.valueOf() to verify the returned value hasn't been
altered. 
While going through various browser implementations FF, Opera (presto), the use
of 'use strict' should throw error should there be an attempt to modify
location.valueOf.

Adding these tests to make sure it throws the expected TypeError. 

PTAL, thank you.

[Jens Widell, 2015-02-18 09:09:47]

LGTM. Thanks for improving the tests!

One other thing that might be worthwhile adding a test of while we're at it:
"delete location.valueOf".

[vivekg_samsung, 2015-02-18 09:18:03]

New patchsets have been uploaded after l-g-t-m from jl@opera.com

[vivekg, 2015-02-18 09:20:37]

On 2015/02/18 at 09:09:47, jl wrote:
> LGTM. Thanks for improving the tests!
> 
> One other thing that might be worthwhile adding a test of while we're at it:
"delete location.valueOf".

Thank you. Added the deletion tests as suggested.

[haraken, 2015-02-18 09:43:45]

LGTM

[vivekg, 2015-02-18 10:17:23]

The CQ bit was checked by vivekg@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-18 10:17:58]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/938593002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-18 11:08:50]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) as
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=190411