Let's use jsbeautifier

[tc39]

Let's use jsbeautifier

[michealbenedict]

@rwaldron I thought I'll get the ball rolling on this one, added a gulp task i.e 'beautify'. Attached diff below. Thoughts? Happy to iterate on this based on feedback.

When would be the apt time to run this task? Would it make sense to run this prior to commit? (pre-commit hook), or as a watch task?

diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b512c09
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+node_modules
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.hgignore b/.hgignore
index 944d1fb..b0536e7 100644
--- a/.hgignore
+++ b/.hgignore
@@ -2,4 +2,4 @@
 \.d8_history$
 ~$
 \.pyc$
-console/TestCases
+console/TestCases
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/gulpfile.js b/gulpfile.js
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c176c0b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gulpfile.js
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+var
+  gulp       = require('gulp'),
+  through    = require('through2'),
+  jsBeautify = require('js-beautify').js_beautify;
+
+var
+  beautify = function(opt) {
+  function modifyFile(file, enc, cb) {
+    if (file.isNull()) {
+      this.push(file);
+      return cb();
+    }
+    if (file.isStream()) {
+      this.emit('error', new gutil.PluginError('gulp-beautify', 'Streaming not supported'));
+      return cb();
+    }
+
+    var str = file.contents.toString();
+
+    file.contents = new Buffer(jsBeautify(str, opts));
+    this.push(file);
+    cb();
+  }
+
+  return through.obj(modifyFile);
+};
+
+/*
+ * Beautify task
+**/
+gulp.task('beautify', function() {
+  gulp.src('./test/suite/**/**.js')
+    .pipe(beautify({
+      indentSize: 2,
+      break_chained_methods: false
+    }))
+});
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/package.json b/package.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e2e75f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/package.json
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+{
+  "name": "test262",
+  "version": "0.0.1",
+  "description": "Official ECMAScript Conformance Test Suite ",
+  "directories": {
+    "docs": "docs",
+    "test": "test"
+  },
+  "devDependencies": {
+    "gulp": "~3.5.0",
+    "gulp-util": "~2.2.13",
+    "through2": "~0.4.1",
+    "js-beautify": "~1.4.2"
+  },
+  "scripts": {
+    "beautify": "gulp beautify"
+  },
+  "repository": {
+    "type": "git",
+    "url": "[email protected]:tc39/test262.git"
+  },
+  "keywords": [
+    "test",
+    "suite",
+    "ecmascript",
+    "ecma"
+  ],
+  "author": "",
+  "license": "Refer LICENSe",
+  "gitHead": "9b669da66c78bd583bc130a7ca3151258e4681a1"
+}

[rwaldron]

@rowoot Thanks, but I'd prefer to use Grunt and have already written the patch.

[bterlson]

There is a problem with beautifiers: it may change the test in undesirable ways. For testing library semantics, formatting doesn't matter. But when testing syntax, it's conceivable that the precise placement of braces/spaces/line breaks/etc. are intended and required to exercise syntax of a particular feature...

[rwaldron]

But when testing syntax, it's conceivable that the precise placement of braces/spaces/line breaks/etc. are intended and required to exercise syntax of a particular feature..

Yep, these can be skipped by convention.

[bterlson]

What convention do you propose? It seems like before we add any beautification we would need to very carefully understand a large number of current tests to know to exclude them.

[rwaldron]

@bterlson I hadn't thought that far ahead, but I assume any syntax test should have the word "syntax" in the file name. We can omit these with globbing patterns

[bterlson]

I do not believe that assumption is correct, as there is currently no convention established for identifying syntax tests... Perhaps the description could contain "syntax" but that's not 100% guaranteed either.

I guess my ultimate point is: any patch for adding beautification should also come with updates applying the convention to the current test collateral.

In terms of convention, I think I'd rather have an @syntax attribute than use filename for some sigils and @-ributes for others.

[muratsu]

Another concern with beautifiers is that they may not have the latest language features added yet. I haven't checked the jsbeautifier source but they will probably need some updates before being ES6 compliant.

[michealbenedict]

@rowoot Thanks, but I'd prefer to use Grunt and have already written the patch.

Sounds good.

[rwaldron]

I do not believe that assumption is correct

That's cool, I just made it up on the spot :P

I guess my ultimate point is: any patch for adding beautification should also come with updates applying the convention to the current test collateral.

Agreed.

In terms of convention, I think I'd rather have an @syntax attribute than use filename for some sigils and @-ributes for others.

In the actual file?

[bterlson]

@rwaldron yeah, in the file along with the @path and @Negative attributes. I just think it is better to have all of a test's metadata in one place.

[bterlson]

I don't think we should blanket-apply a beautifier, so I'm going to close this. If particular tests are ugly, file a bug. If you want to tackle a broader normalization, file an issue with the normalization you propose so we can consider whether it's appropriate.