Deny Unicode Escapes in boolean and null expressions

[veera-sivarajan]

This Pull Request fixes/closes #2771.

This PR keeps track of ContainsEscapeSequence in all TokenKind::BooleanLiteral and TokenKind::NullLiteral and throws an error when it gets parsed as an expression.

Opening a different PR for this since I messed up the commit history of the previous PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2931 (8172596) into main (d13979d) will decrease coverage by 1.70%.
The diff coverage is 38.88%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2931      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   52.09%   50.39%   -1.70%     
==========================================
  Files         435      443       +8     
  Lines       43713    45346    +1633     
==========================================
+ Hits        22771    22851      +80     
- Misses      20942    22495    +1553     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
boa_parser/src/lexer/token.rs	48.57% <0.00%> (ø)
...a_parser/src/parser/expression/assignment/yield.rs	34.54% <0.00%> (ø)
...arser/expression/primary/object_initializer/mod.rs	63.75% <0.00%> (ø)
...ser/src/parser/expression/left_hand_side/member.rs	52.89% <14.28%> (+1.27%)	⬆️
...arser/src/parser/expression/left_hand_side/call.rs	46.77% <25.00%> (+2.15%)	⬆️
boa_parser/src/parser/expression/primary/mod.rs	54.59% <40.00%> (+0.88%)	⬆️
boa_parser/src/lexer/identifier.rs	91.80% <50.00%> (-4.75%)	⬇️
...c/parser/expression/left_hand_side/optional/mod.rs	79.36% <100.00%> (-0.64%)	⬇️
.../statement/declaration/hoistable/class_decl/mod.rs	50.65% <100.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️

... and 70 files with indirect coverage changes

[HalidOdat]

Test result	main count	PR count	difference
Total	94,657	94,657	0
Passed	73,901	73,901	0
Ignored	17,505	17,505	0
Failed	3,251	3,251	0
Panics	0	0	0
Conformance	78.07%	78.07%	0.00%

[raskad]

Since there seems to be not explicit test for this in the 262 suite, could you add some tests for this that make sure the parser produces syntax errors in these cases?

[HalidOdat]

Looks good, check my comment to see on how we might improve this :)

[HalidOdat]

Thanks for the contribution! @veera-sivarajan Looks perfect to me! :)

[Razican]

Since there seems to be not explicit test for this in the 262 suite, could you add some tests for this that make sure the parser produces syntax errors in these cases?

Should we try to add such a test to Test262, or report it at least?

[veera-sivarajan]

Since there seems to be not explicit test for this in the 262 suite, could you add some tests for this that make sure the parser produces syntax errors in these cases?

Should we try to add such a test to Test262, or report it at least?

I have opened a PR for the same.

[raskad]

Really nice job, great contribution!