[jugglinmike]

Resolves tc39/ecma402#816

[github-actions]

5 new or modified tests were run on 7 engines.

View workflow run

Test	Engine262	GraalJS	JavaScriptCore	QuickJS	SpiderMonkey	V8	XS
intl402/DateTimeFormat/prototype/resolvedOptions/required-date-props-all-specified.js	❌	❌	❌	❌	✅	❌	❌
intl402/DateTimeFormat/prototype/resolvedOptions/required-date-props-none-specified.js	❌	❌	❌	❌	✅	❌	❌
intl402/DateTimeFormat/prototype/resolvedOptions/required-date-props-some-specified-day.js	❌	✅	✅	❌	✅	✅	❌
intl402/DateTimeFormat/prototype/resolvedOptions/required-date-props-some-specified-month.js	❌	✅	✅	❌	✅	✅	❌
intl402/DateTimeFormat/prototype/resolvedOptions/required-date-props-some-specified-year.js	❌	✅	❌	❌	✅	❌	❌

[sffc]

This is a good clean test; nice work. Which engines currently pass and fail?

EDIT: I see the bot answered my question already. :)

[sffc]

Suggestion: the main thing you're testing here (and elsewhere in this PR) is resolvedOptions behavior. The name of the PR and the test should indicate this.

[jugglinmike]

Got it. (I thought the bug was in CreateDateTimeFormat, and that we were only using resolvedOptions to observe it. If that were the case, though, then I think we'd be able to observe it through Date.prototype.toLocaleString and DateTimeFormat.prototype.formatToParts... Except we can't.)

[bakkot]

It's fine to keep including the spec text blocks if you'd like, but for your reference we no longer encourage their use in new tests so you are also welcome to leave them out.

[jugglinmike]

Noted! In this case, I ended up adding more context because it clarifies a misunderstanding that I had in the first draft of these tests.