W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > November 2018

[PlugFest/Test] minutes - 7 November 2018

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 01:34:57 +0900
Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9Wi2NC9nbRW8eQLaLgRR17q61Jy4D5UpV7vXFO1WdZnmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2018/11/07-wot-pf-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

---

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                              WoT-PF/Test

07 Nov 2018

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Taki_Kamiya, Dave_Raggett,
          Michael_Lagally, Kunihiko_Toumura, Takeshi_Yamada,
          Tomoaki_Mizushima, Toru_Kawaguchi, Ege_Korkan

   Regrets

   Chair
          McCool

   Scribe
          kaz

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Timeline
         2. [4]Telco slot
         3. [5]Testing plan
     * [6]Summary of Action Items
     * [7]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <McCool>
   [8]https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/PlugFest_WebConf#Agenda_07.11
   .2018

      [8] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/PlugFest_WebConf#Agenda_07.11.2018

Timeline

   McCool: go back to the requirements
   ... don't have to complete testing work before CR but strongly
   recommended to do so
   ... highly desired for us to do that
   ... given the 6-month extension
   ... aiming April is dangerous
   ... maybe the end of March at the latest?
   ... or CR to be submitted end of Feb
   ... practical deadline might be end of March
   ... candidate release end of Dec

   Kaz: our initial updated deadline should be Feb at the latest

Telco slot

   McCool: pros and cons with this slot
   ... suggested we use the binding slot
   ... do we need another doodle?

   Kaz: note Koster is not available today

   McCool: he's not available once a month
   ... would see the conclusion of the TD tf
   ... maybe we can hold a simple doodle
   ... the binding slot or the current slot
   ... and see if people would be available
   ... if not we can try another slot
   ... to be clear, next meeting will be at this slot next week
   ... any comments?

   (none)

Testing plan

   McCool: how to handle testing?
   ... the main testing repo and possibly subdirectories of TD
   ... we should create a new main testing repo
   ... separate repo for test suite?

   Kaz: we need two test suites, one for TD and another for
   architecture

   McCool: TD is the main one
   ... e.g., checking the validity of a TD
   ... need many behavior tests

   Dave: TD validation itself is not required for CR exit criteria

   Kaz: right. that's why I've been asking people to extract
   assertions from specs

   (discussion about what is expected)

   Kaz: thought plugfest reports by a, b, c could be a starting
   point

   McCool: would like to generate an initial list of assertions

   Taki: description about implementations for the implementation
   report

   Dave: possible review by the other groups?

   Kaz: possibly accessibility, i18n, etc.

   McCool: still wondering about validity of TD formats

   Kaz: that depends on the TD spec
   ... if validity itself is the feature of TD spec, we should add
   description to TD spec

   McCool: let's think about the structure of testing first

   Ege: we have property expecting server to send out
   ... might have an assertion about that expectation using some
   JSON object

   <dsr> I don’t agree that actions should always produce the same
   output given the same input.

   <dsr> That relates to application semantics

   <kaz> right

   Kaz: we can add any kinds of additional resources to each
   assertion later
   ... and we need to extract assertions from the spec as the
   starting point

   McCool: we can create sample TDs to test assertions
   ... test plan document can be a CSV file initially
   ... test result document would be a table
   ... explains how to extract assertions

   Kaz: we can extract key features manually from the TD spec
   ... and also extract structural features from the [9]Turtle
   files possibly
   ... anyway we should see what are expected to be extracted as
   assertions by revisiting previous implementation reports, e.g.,
   the one for EMMA

      [9] https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/tree/master/ontology

   EMMA implementation report as an example:
   [10]https://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2008/emma-ir/

     [10] https://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2008/emma-ir/

   McCool: would like to review that offline

   Lagally: btw, there is a pullrequest for Oracle plugfest report

   [adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [11]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([12]CVS log)
    $Date: 2018/11/07 16:34:26 $

     [11] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2018 16:36:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 November 2018 16:36:12 UTC