test: import Symbol constructor

[Planeshifter]

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• Fixes a lint_random_files CI failure on develop: https://github.com/stdlib-js/stdlib/actions/runs/34911553402 (lint_random_files / "Lint JavaScript files").
• ESLint (n/no-unsupported-features/es-builtins) flags lib/node_modules/@stdlib/symbol/to-primitive/test/test.js:50:22 for referencing the global Symbol.toPrimitive, unsupported under this repo's configured Node floor (>=0.12.18 in etc/eslint/rules/nodejs.js; Symbol.toPrimitive requires Node 6+).
• The package's own lib/main.js already shadows the global via var Symbol = require( '@stdlib/symbol/ctor' );, so the rule's scope analysis doesn't flag it there. The test file never did the same, so the reference resolved to the global builtin and tripped the rule.
• Adds the identical shadow to test/test.js. @stdlib/symbol/ctor re-exports the global Symbol constructor unchanged, so this is referentially identical at runtime — no behavior change, only satisfies lint. The same pattern is already used in 74 other test files across the repo, and in symbol/async-iterator/lib/main.js (fix: shadow global Symbol in async-iterator to resolve lint #11905, chore: resolve n/no-unsupported-features lint error in symbol/async-iterator #11927).
• 1 file changed, 1 insertion.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

None.

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

Confirmed the shadow resolves the flagged line by static analysis of the ESLint rule's scope-analysis behavior and by checking runtime referential identity (require('@stdlib/symbol/ctor') === global Symbol). tape is not installed in this environment, so the suite itself was not executed locally.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

This PR was authored by an automated CI-failure investigation and fix routine (Claude Code) running as a scheduled task. Three independent reviewer passes (correctness, regression scope, style/conventions) approved the change with no blocking findings before this PR was opened.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01NcrBJtjFWieVFKStqCyyYH

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
symbol/to-primitive	$\\color{green}120/120$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{red}2/3$ $\\color{green}+66.67\\%$	$\\color{green}0/0$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}120/120$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.