- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 11:06:54 +0900
- To: public-wot-ig@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/01/22-wot-pf-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT-PlugFest/Testing
22 Jan 2020
Attendees
Present
Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Sebastian_Kaebisch,
Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_Koster, Takahisa_Suzuki,
Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
Chair
McCool
Scribe
kaz
Contents
* [2]Topics
1. [3]Plan and expectation
2. [4]Next calls
* [5]Summary of Action Items
* [6]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
Plan and expectation
McCool: we should talk about our plan/expectation first
... kaz previously mentioned test framework
... myself think about interoperability testing
... more focused consumer viewpoint
... conformance, etc.
... generally need to think about features
... what are the features and related assertions
... for the Helsinki meeting, we should have test framework
... should use this time for sorting out it
... would like to state the issues
... what kind of test would be appropriate, etc.
Sebastian: what do you mean by "framework"?
... set of tools?
McCool: tools and procedure
... various tools, things, etc.
... data to be used for multiple implementations
... interoperability testing
... formal output like CSV
... we're half of that
... also should think about behavioral testing
Kaz: right
... we should provide resources for non-WoT people to
understand WoT standards and generate implementations
McCool: yes
... how we communicate with implementation reports, etc., as
well
Sebastian: our assertion table should be a good starting point
McCool: yes
... don't think we have to have automated test
... but might need some additional APIs for testing
... how do we test everything?
... should clarify our plan
Kunihiko: many specs are in incubation phase
... we should investigate the gaps
... not only test/interoperability but also we can use plugfest
for feasibility check
McCool: meaning we need some prototyping?
Kunihiko: right
McCool: should split into testing part and prototyping part
... if we have a test suite, people can test implementations
... and we can focus on gaps
... ambiguity, etc.
... generally speaking, we should hold plugfest/test calls
regularly
... would have a separate repository
... also should clarify we use the same webex as the main call
... regarding conformance, we don't have any description about
conformant implementations
... kind of marketing topic as well
Koster: some kind of online tools people can do something
... we always need to look at files
... but also have some idea of online things
... like eclipse foundation's tools
McCool: virtual devices with online urls
... so that we can play with them
... there is testing and kind of like examples and
documentation
... but not well-organized yet
... we care about test coverage
... someone is doing multi-language system
... if we put WoT testing repo in one place
... might be cleaner to navigate people
Koster: developer journey will start
... how do I get involved?
... download tools to check conformance
McCool: good point
... what to be supported in each step of the procedure
... two steps, examples and how to see if it's correct
... different stages
Koster: a lot of hints for developers
... engage the hands-on side
McCool: one is prototyping to check new ideas
... and evangelism for new comers
... then testing for conformance check
... one event handler or multiple handlers?
Koster: those are questions I have as well
McCool: would be good if we could have a hackathon
... should have experts there
... probably should consider both training and prototyping
Koster: during OCF ones, they work together to validate test
cases
... should be online?
McCool: for testing the test cases
... do we have same conception as the spec?
... ambiguity about the meaning
... f2f time is good for validation
... pragmatically what would be our actions?
Kaz: should we have multiple tasks including prototyping,
conformance test and documentation?
McCool: would create a dedicated GitHub repo for the work
Kaz: what should be the title for the repo?
McCool: "wot-testing"
... what do you think?
Sebastian: ok
McCool: specifically testing, planning for test cases, etc.
... landing point for the work
Koster: test content should be self-contain
... a lot of different resources there
... before we create a new repo, we should clean them up
McCool: a lot of old contents
... would suggest we create a new repo and move necessary
contents to there
... and then make update
Sebastian: makes sense
... but who to handle what?
McCool: can volunteer
... and work with Ege
Kaz: what about JP participants?
McCool: can issue a call-for-participants
... also we can have discussion during the marketing call as
well
... should have a resolution for "wot-testing" repo?
proposal: we'll create the "wot-testing" GitHub repo for
further testing/plugfest work
(no objections)
RESOLUTION: we'll create the "wot-testing" GitHub repo for
further testing/plugfest work
<scribe> ACTION: kaz to create "wot-testing" repo
Next calls
Kaz: we'll have a marketing call tomorrow at 14UTC
... and the next test/plugest call will be right after the main
call next Wednesday
[adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: kaz to create "wot-testing" repo
Summary of Resolutions
1. [7]we'll create the "wot-testing" GitHub repo for further
testing/plugfest work
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
David Booth's [8]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([9]CVS log)
$Date: 2020/02/03 02:04:56 $
[8] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 3 February 2020 02:07:03 UTC