Add String.search(regexp)

[klolev]

This Pull Request fixes/closes #117 .

It changes the following:

• Adds String.prototype.search
• Adds RegExp.prototype[@@search]

This is my first PR here, comments are welcome!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #887 into master will decrease coverage by 0.09%.
The diff coverage is 58.20%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #887      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   59.28%   59.19%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         155      165      +10     
  Lines        9924    10397     +473     
==========================================
+ Hits         5883     6154     +271     
- Misses       4041     4243     +202     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
boa/src/builtins/console/mod.rs	22.47% <ø> (+3.37%)	⬆️
boa/src/builtins/error/mod.rs	66.66% <ø> (ø)
boa/src/builtins/string/string_iterator.rs	77.50% <0.00%> (ø)
boa/src/class.rs	0.00% <ø> (ø)
boa/src/environment/global_environment_record.rs	27.95% <0.00%> (ø)
boa/src/lib.rs	86.36% <ø> (ø)
boa/src/object/iter.rs	21.21% <ø> (ø)
boa/src/profiler.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
boa/src/property/attribute/mod.rs	86.95% <ø> (-3.67%)	⬇️
boa/src/syntax/ast/node/await_expr/mod.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 86 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update dc82aa2...91fb6af. Read the comment docs.

[RageKnify]

@flix477 you made this branch over an old commit of the master branch, could you please merge master into this branch so that we get accurate values for the coverage?
I don't think these 2 functions are covered and we'd probably want at least 1 test for String.search, that should be enough to cover most of both functions.

[RageKnify]

Looking good, but needs some fixes. I also don't think your implementation of String.prototype.search is spec-compliant, rather than building a RegExp object regardless you should check for the @@search property. I don't think GetMethod is currently defined, but getting the property and checking whether it is a function is enough for now, probably leave a TODO in a comment mentioning it.

[RageKnify]

According to point 2. of the spec this should throw a TypeError.
As an example to test this: RegExp.prototype[Symbol.search].call(0, 'test') in Chrome throws: TypeError: Method RegExp.prototype.@@search called on incompatible receiver 0.
I'm not sure .prototype is accessible in boa so I don't know if we can test this.

[RageKnify]

Someone else can confirm, but I'm pretty sure the signature needs to be (this: &Value, args: &[Value], ctx: &mut Context) -> Result<Value>, all builin functions have the same signature.
This also needs to be declared as a method of the RegExp global object, you can see some examples here:

boa/boa/src/builtins/regexp/mod.rs

Lines 81 to 83 in 2cb2442

	.method(Self::test, "test", 1)
	.method(Self::exec, "exec", 1)
	.method(Self::to_string, "toString", 0)

Note that after the algorithm definition the spec mentions the "name" of the function should is "[Symbol.search]".

[RageKnify]

Can use just 1 function to check for both cases of null and undefined:

boa/boa/src/value/mod.rs

Lines 311 to 313 in 2cb2442

	pub fn is_null_or_undefined(&self) -> bool {
	matches!(self, Self::Null | Self::Undefined)
	}

[Razican]

Hi @flix477, please, let us know the state of the changes proposed in this PR :) Check the comments by @HalidOdat and let us know if you have any doubts or want any help!

[jasonwilliams]

Hey @flix477 how is this going?

[jedel1043]

We should close this PR. Both String.prototype.search and RegExp.prototype[@@search] are already implemented.