- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:44:01 +0900
- To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2019/01/16-wot-pf-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT TestFest
16 Jan 2019
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan,
Kunihiko_Toumura, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima,
Toru_Kawaguchi
Regrets
Chair
McCool
Scribe
kaz
Contents
* [2]Topics
* [3]Summary of Action Items
* [4]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<ege>
[5]https://github.com/egekorkan/wot/tree/master/testfest/2019-0
2-princeton
[5] https://github.com/egekorkan/wot/tree/master/testfest/2019-02-princeton
Sebastian: explains TestFest expectation and setup
... TD instance compliant to TD spec
... TD playground and/or manual check
... then
... behavior test
... clients/consumers receive the expected results as defined
in a TD instance?
McCool: some emergency tests
Ege: for the first test, we generate assertions
McCool: would like to see the progress on the automatic checker
Ege: digging into AJV
... sort of my feature
var schema = {
type:"object",
properties:{
actions:{
if: {type:"object"},
then: {
const: "implemented"
},
else: {
const:"fail"
},
},
events:{
type:"object"
}
}
}
]]
McCool: great if Ege could do this
Ege: it's a challenge
... what is valid
... looked into multiple options
... we can find a shortcut
... copy/paste big schema
McCool: the bottom line is customize the schema
Ege: but not from scratch
McCool: do you have time to do that?
Ege: yeah, I'm trying
... but the behavior test would be easier
McCool: what would we do for network configuration?
... e.g., security fuzz testing
... does it actually respond?
... we can tell 404 is broken
... let's go back to your generated work flow
[6]agenda
[6] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/PlugFest_WebConf#Agenda_28.11.2018
[7]workflow
[7] https://github.com/egekorkan/wot/tree/master/testfest/2019-02-princeton
McCool: one TD for one instance
... still need node-wot event implementation
... how many features implemented?
<ege>
[8]https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/testing/criteria.md
[8] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/testing/criteria.md
Sebastian: need to leave
... will you both (Ege and McCool) join the TD call on 18th?
both: yes
Sebastian: missing assertions?
McCool: meant to do that before...
... try to do that by Friday
Kaz: one question
... who is managing the node-wot implementation and test for
that?
Sebastian: the latest information can come from Daniel
... Siemens will bring it
... Daniel won't join the Princeton f2f but Ege will
Kaz: ok
(sebastian leaves)
Kaz: we still need implementation results from node-wot
McCool: right
... btw, it's still not clear enough about "manual TDs + legacy
devices"
... updates the criteria.md
[9]criteria.md
[9] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/testing/criteria.md
McCool: would update the "6. Systems" section of the
report.html
... definition of implementations
... based on the criteria.md description
Ege: working on the workflow and the validation tool
McCool: can you create a PR for the workflow?
Ege: ok
McCool: created sub directories for the online testfest in Dec:
[10]https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/testfest/2018-12-onl
ine
... TDs and CSVs
... results sub directory has implementers sub directories
... each implementer sub directory has CVS results
... like:
[11]https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/testfest/2018-12-onl
ine/results/Intel/intel-camera.csv
... let's merge your proposed workflow with the
w3c/wot/testfest/2019-02-princeton repo
[10] https://github.com/w3c/wot/tree/master/testfest/2018-12-online
[11] https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/testfest/2018-12-online/results/Intel/intel-camera.csv
Ege: need some updates
McCool: then tomorrow
Ege: ok
McCool: what about network logistics?
... ports, etc.?
Kaz: we've started some discussion on our needs
... but not sure about the conclusion
McCool: hopefully it's getting ready
... would like to see how to process the behavior tests as well
Kaz: btw, is the coverage of the assertion lists ok?
... or still need some more review?
McCool: from syntax viewpoint, the assertion list should be ok
... let me think about that a bit more
... syntactically we're not in bad shape
... pretty good shape
... the question should be (additional) behavior test
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([13]CVS log)
$Date: 2019/01/21 04:42:56 $
[12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[13] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 21 January 2019 04:45:04 UTC