[PlugFest/Testing] minutes - 19 February 2020

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/02/19-wot-pf-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Michael Koster!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

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

                               - DRAFT -

                          WoT-PlugFest/Testing

19 Feb 2020

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Koster, Michael_McCool,
          Takahisa_Suzuki, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Ege_Korkan

   Regrets
          Sebastian_Kaebisch

   Chair
          McCool

   Scribe
          mjkoster

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]what are the actions, what do we need to do?
     * [4]Summary of Action Items
     * [5]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <kaz> scribenick: mjkoster

what are the actions, what do we need to do?

   <kaz> (for the Helsinki f2f meeting)

   <kaz> [6]Helsinki f2f wiki

      [6] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_6-11_June_2020,_Helsinki

   McCool: adding action section to the wiki page
   ... what are the actions and sub-actions?
   ... created initial list of actions
   ... any others?
   ... Creating the table of implementations

   Kaz: is this to add interoperability testing?

   McCool: more to capture the results for reporting
   ... and capture additional information about interoperability
   ... like reporting pairs that work together in a matrix of
   interoperability
   ... producer/consumer pairs
   ... the implementation report will contain conformance results
   and interoperability results
   ... one problem is that assertions are not well aligned with
   features
   ... for example, does an implementaiton support actions as a
   feature, and what assertions are needed to test the feature

   Kaz: please use a different file name for the new reporting

   McCool: each plugfest should have its own documentation
   ... planning for the site and expenses
   ... expecting to prepare for up to 30 participants

   Koster: are there testable assertions around interoperability

   McCool: there could be conformance testing for one side of the
   interaction
   ... we could use node-wot or Node-RED as a generalized tester
   ... do we need a secondary interface to verify the expected
   results of actions, write-only properties, etc.
   ... does anyone disagree with the goal of improving the data
   capture?
   ... any other business, other items to add?
   ... is there any other planning needed? Other actions?

   Ege: joined
   ... how do we capture the interactions part of a mashup?
   ... how do we capture the client part of the logic?
   ... how do we capture the onboarding and discovery, which thing
   is being controlled?

   Kaz: describe the structure of the application, infrastructure
   and network configuration

   McCool: add a link to the csv that links to descriptive
   documents
   ... have the tool generate client requests

   Ege: has a tool that does this

   <ege> [7]https://github.com/tum-esi/testbench

      [7] https://github.com/tum-esi/testbench

   McCool: semantic test tool to bound inputs and check results
   ... aob?
   ... adjourn

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [8]scribe.perl version 1.154 ([9]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/02/27 14:03:10 $

      [8] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2020 14:07:16 UTC