- From: Benjamin Goering <ben@bengo.co>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:38:39 -0800
- To: Bumblefudge <bumblefudge@learningproof.xyz>
- Cc: public-swicg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAN+OhBNSKb5Bu2tdg-qO+bux100MrT16WOOor=mT_EFL8NH=Ag@mail.gmail.com>
All of the above sounds great to discuss. This doesn't need sync agenda time, and is probably too long to digest before the meeting. That's cool, it's async-friendly and a status report video activitypub-testing overview 2024-01-29 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRicTYlTHFk> and has ~5min videos for each of 5 parts of how activitypub-testing <https://codeberg.org/socialweb.coop/activitypub-testing> and activitypub-testing-website <https://activitypub-testing-website.socialweb.coop/> works. i hope the video transcodes to hd fully w/in an hour or so, sorry it it doesn't but I'm going to sleep :P Even without full res you can get the gist of most demos and can hear the narration of how things fit together. (big caveat: lots is still WIP. I'm sharing here since its relevant activity since last TF call, not because anything mentioned is recommended for wide use right now) I'm ready for a break from all that though, and I'm excited to learn from other testing approaches on the call tty in a few hours On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 9:51 PM Bumblefudge <bumblefudge@learningproof.xyz> wrote: > Reminder: in 10.5 hours this call is happening! > On 1/24/2024 6:27 PM, Johannes Ernst wrote: > > Bumblefudge <bumblefudge@learningproof.xyz> > <bumblefudge@learningproof.xyz> wrote: > > Please reply-all to the list if you would like to put something on the > agenda. > > > 1. I can provide a brief update on the status of FediTest. There is some > running code, but still experimental and a bit too early to show-and-tell. > > Excellent! > > 2. I could also provide an overview over the responses to my survey on > developers and their development setup and virtualization. There are 44 > responses so far, some of it is unexpected (to me). (A number that > surprised me!) Survey is here: > https://apps.dazzlelabs.net/nextcloud/apps/forms/s/ed2WBPzrrWFcWKjT5a9MwMGp > > Nice! > > > More importantly, echo’ing some of what Marcus said: > > On Jan 23, 2024, at 01:17, Marcus Rohrmoser <me.swicg@mro.name> > <me.swicg@mro.name> wrote: > > Yes, however I am unsure how to phrase it. > > 1. IMO the tests should benefit the netizens, operators and developers and > therefore should be easy to operate and friendly to ad-hoc deploy (rather > than 24/7) for unprevileged (non-root) netizens. Without vendor lock in. > And tomorrow and the week after as well, without permanent underlying > framework changes to be integrated (upwards compatibility. I know it's > hard). So I advocate thinking from the end towards the means, not vice > versa. What options are there aside php and cgis? > > I'd love an unpacking of this paragraph to be agenda item, since I don't > understand it. I love the idea that netizens and operators/admins have as > much at stake as developers, but I'm not sure I can picture what state of > affairs would benefit them equally, much less work backwards from it? > Should be a fun discussion! > > 2. Many ActivityPub processes are asynchronous in nature and are hard to > follow and therefore test. IMO we should encourage a 'friendly feedback' > policy to > a. immediately report back the effect in a machine readable manner, evtl. > with an url to track the progress, > b, if asynchronous, then call back once there is a result, > c. never silently discard requests. > > > This sounds like something socialweb.coop has been grappling with lately: > many of the "harder to test" requirements in AP require results other than > pass/fail, and complex layered results. Would be good to sanity check the > tentative approach we've been working on, love the name "friendly feedback" > :D > > 3. I think it would be useful to spend some time on the requirements side > of testing for the Fediverse. > > We sometimes wave “testing!!!” around as some kind of magic wand, but as > we can see from the various projects, I don’t think we quite agree on what > testing should be done, and in particular Why. Also: Who needs it and what > does it need to look like so they can get the maximum benefit out of a > testing environment and the results of testing? > > The only magic wands I wave around are the word "composability" and > "friendly fork"😉 > > > 4. Another important subject would be: just where exactly do those tests > come from? Who decides what is and isn’t a valid test? That’s particularly > important because AS and AP are so flexible. Example: > > * if anybody gets to do anything allowed by AS and AP, hopes of > out-of-the-box interop as low, and testing tells developers who want > real-world interoperability fairly little. > > * if “passing all tests” is supposed to mean “will interoperate with 90% > of the installed fediverse base”, then many tests have to be defined that > do not have a root in a W3C or other standards document, but test for > conventions deployed by the leading implementations. > > (Personally I believe we need to have both, and tests needs to be > organized in a very modular fashion based on the “authority” from which > they are derived.) > > Totally agree! The user running the tests decides which tests are valid, > and will ignore any tests they disagree with unless we make it very easy > for them to turn them off and replace them with tests they find valid. > Ideally, if we serve those users well, they might even "upstream" their > modifications and make our simple test suites a borgesian garden of forking > paths and optionality😅 > > I don't think the scope of this CG's testing task force is or should be > limited to "writing tests for this CG's ratified specifications", and I > want to support people writing profiles of IETF specs or community/living > documents not rooted in SDO authority. The only thing that strikes me as > out-of-scope (at least of tomorrow's meeting) would be giving the CG's > implicit blessing to, or donating its finite bandwidth to, specific > implementations or platforms (even if non-commercial!). Maybe I'm being > more catholic than the pope, though? We could always scope calls with a > single-implementation/platform API focus and declare that scope before > scheduling, if there's demand for it? I'm just the facilitator and > note-taker, the users and contributors set the agenda here. > > > So plenty to talk about from my perspective :-) > > Cheers, > > > > Johannes. > > Johannes Ernst > > Fediforum <https://fediforum.org/> > Dazzle Labs <https://dazzlelabs.net/> > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2024 10:38:58 UTC