[Merged by Bors] - Refactor the Date builtin

[jedel1043]

Just a general cleanup of the Date builtin to use slightly better patterns and to fix our warnings about deprecated functions.

About the regressed tests. It seems to be a chrono bug, so I opened up an issue (chronotope/chrono#884) for it and they've already opened a PR fixing it (chronotope/chrono#885).

However, while checking out the remaining failing tests, I realized there's a more fundamental limitation with the library. Currently, chrono specifies:

Date types are limited in about +/- 262,000 years from the common epoch.

While the ECMAScript spec says:

The smaller range supported by a time value as specified in this section is approximately -273,790 to 273,790 years relative to 1970.

The range allowed by the spec is barely outside of the range supported by chrono! This is why the remaining Date tests fail.
Seeing that, I would like to ping @djc and @esheppa (the maintainers of chrono) to ask if it would be feasible to add a feature, akin to the large-dates feature from the time crate, that expands the supported range of chrono.

EDIT: Filed chronotope/chrono#886

[github-actions]

Test262 conformance changes

Test result	main count	PR count	difference
Total	93,831	93,831	0
Passed	69,620	69,626	+6
Ignored	18,472	18,472	0
Failed	5,739	5,733	-6
Panics	0	0	0
Conformance	74.20%	74.20%	+0.01%

Fixed tests (10):

test/harness/assertRelativeDateMs.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/harness/assertRelativeDateMs.js (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Date/prototype/valueOf/S9.4_A3_T1.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Date/prototype/valueOf/S9.4_A3_T1.js (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Date/UTC/non-integer-values.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Date/UTC/non-integer-values.js (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Date/UTC/overflow-make-day.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Date/UTC/overflow-make-day.js (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Date/UTC/overflow-make-time.js [strict mode] (previously Failed)
test/built-ins/Date/UTC/overflow-make-time.js (previously Failed)

Broken tests (4):

test/annexB/built-ins/Date/prototype/setYear/year-number-absolute.js [strict mode] (previously Passed)
test/annexB/built-ins/Date/prototype/setYear/year-number-absolute.js (previously Passed)
test/annexB/built-ins/Date/prototype/getYear/return-value.js [strict mode] (previously Passed)
test/annexB/built-ins/Date/prototype/getYear/return-value.js (previously Passed)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2449 (8a4dc5c) into main (5125da0) will increase coverage by 0.13%.
The diff coverage is 70.12%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2449      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   52.39%   52.52%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files         330      329       -1     
  Lines       35041    34793     -248     
==========================================
- Hits        18359    18276      -83     
+ Misses      16682    16517     -165     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
boa_engine/src/builtins/date/mod.rs	90.66% <ø> (-0.94%)	⬇️
boa_engine/src/builtins/weak/weak_ref.rs	73.80% <ø> (ø)
boa_engine/src/context/mod.rs	65.50% <ø> (ø)
boa_engine/src/object/builtins/jsdate.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
boa_engine/src/vm/mod.rs	47.97% <ø> (ø)
boa_engine/src/object/mod.rs	46.17% <71.42%> (-0.25%)	⬇️
boa_engine/src/value/mod.rs	65.32% <83.33%> (+0.24%)	⬆️
boa_engine/src/builtins/date/utils.rs	98.79% <98.79%> (ø)
boa_engine/src/builtins/set/mod.rs	73.65% <100.00%> (+3.23%)	⬆️
boa_engine/src/builtins/set/ordered_set.rs	64.28% <100.00%> (+2.74%)	⬆️
... and 18 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[djc]

Please file an issue against the chrono project instead of requesting a feature in a PR to your own project.

(Adding such a feature could make sense, I suppose.)

[jedel1043]

Please file an issue against the chrono project instead of requesting a feature in a PR to your own project.

(Adding such a feature could make sense, I suppose.)

Thanks for the quick response! Just wanted to confirm with you before opening an issue, mainly to avoid polluting the issue tracker with unfeasible feature requests :)

[Razican]

Looks pretty good! Thanks :) I added some comments in places where I saw the code could be enhanced. It's an interesting usage of the const generics, btw! maybe this needs a minimum supported rust version bump?

[jedel1043]

... maybe this needs a minimum supported rust version bump?

We set rust-version to 1.65 on the workspace Cargo.toml, so we're already targeting the latest rustc.

[HalidOdat]

Looks perfect to me !

[Razican]

bors r+

[bors]

Pull request successfully merged into main.

Build succeeded:

• Build and Test (macos-latest)
• Build and Test (windows-latest)
• Coverage
• Misc