- 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 04:45:03 UTC