fix: remove QuotaExceededError from DOMException error names tablefix: remove QuotaExceededError from DOMException error names table

[VISHNU7KASIREDDY]

Per whatwg/webidl#1465, QuotaExceededError is no longer a specific DOMException name but will be upgraded to a DOMException subclass.

This PR implements the minimal fix by removing QuotaExceededError from the nameToCodeMapping so that new DOMException('msg', 'QuotaExceededError').code returns 0 instead of 22.

Changes:

• Removed QuotaExceededError from the error names table in ext/web/01_dom_exception.js
• Added test to verify QuotaExceededError.code === 0

Fixes #30028Per whatwg/webidl#1465, QuotaExceededError is no longer a specific DOMException name but will be upgraded to a DOMException subclass.

This commit removes QuotaExceededError from the nameToCodeMapping so that new DOMException('msg', 'QuotaExceededError').code returns 0 instead of 22.

Fixes #30028

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The change removes "QuotaExceededError" from the DOMException name-to-code mapping, so lookups for that name yield no specific code and DOMException instances for it use code 0. The DOMException class and its public API remain unchanged. Tests were added and adjusted to assert that QuotaExceededError has code 0, name "QuotaExceededError", message "quota exceeded", and related test expectations for quota-exceeded storage cases were updated.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and specifically describes the main change: removing QuotaExceededError from DOMException's error names table to align with WHATWG spec changes.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is directly related to the changeset, explaining the WHATWG spec rationale, the specific change (removing QuotaExceededError from nameToCodeMapping), and referencing the related issue #30028.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f4569a9 and 6a6ab50.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• tests/wpt/runner/expectation.json (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (1)

📚 Learning: 2025-11-24T16:19:37.808Z

Learnt from: CR
Repo: denoland/deno PR: 0
File: CLAUDE.md:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-11-24T16:19:37.808Z
Learning: Applies to tests/specs/**/{__test__.jsonc,*.out} : Output assertions in spec tests should use `__test__.jsonc` inline fields or `.out` files with special matching syntax: `[WILDCARD]`, `[WILDLINE]`, `[WILDCHAR]`, `[WILDCHARS(n)]`, `[UNORDERED_START]`/`[UNORDERED_END]`, and `[# comment]`

Applied to files:

• tests/wpt/runner/expectation.json

🔇 Additional comments (1)

tests/wpt/runner/expectation.json (1)

13420-13420: Verify test expectation changes align with new QuotaExceededError behavior.

The changes from true to false for the quota-exceeded storage tests align with removing QuotaExceededError from the error mapping, but I need clarification: what do these boolean values represent in the expectation file? Are tests expected to fail, or is this indicating a different status?

To confirm these changes are correct:

1. Clarify the semantics of true vs false in this expectation.json context (pass vs. expected failure, etc.)
2. Run the affected WPT tests to confirm they produce the expected results with the new DOMException behavior.

Have these specific tests (storage_local_setitem_quotaexceedederr.window.html and storage_session_setitem_quotaexceedederr.window.html) been validated to ensure the test outcomes match these expectations?

Also applies to: 13422-13422

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[bartlomieju]

Thanks, but there is already a PR open for this change: #31400. Please use search, before opening a PR.