Summary and Action Items

-> http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-auto-minutes.html Previous meeting

paul: for agenda we have recap of Stuttgart, test framework, security TF
... please fill in the survey regarding f2f
... github repo has been cleaned up

<kaz> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2015May/0022.html

paul: we had a call for editors and it has been answered
... editors: wonsuk lee, qing an, adam crofts, kevin gavigan, and pending is justin
... we also discussed forming a security and privacy tf which ted reported previously was being held up

ted: resolved internal concern and hoped to have a draft cfp for today but do not have it yet. i will produce by eob tomorrow

Testing update

<kaz> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2015May/0022.html

paul: kaz, you wanted to report on testing

kaz: i got some feedback on webplatform testing from others like html5 wg practices

<Paul> New approach: Implementation Report based onWeb Platform Testing, e.g., HTML5 http://w3c.github.io/test-results/html/details.html
Slides on Google Docs by Mike Smith (PDF version of the slides)
Conventional approach: Implementation Report by hand, e.g., SCXML http://www.w3.org/Voice/2013/scxml-irp/

<kaz> kaz's write up

kaz: we should follow html5's practices
... as we approach candidate recommendation phase we'll need reference implementations and being able to produce such a report based on test suite would be desireable

<kaz> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IKpt626qpPnMpiFP9kbkTZaQPj9LST6Awa8d9zK7WCU/edit#slide=id.p

kaz: please see mike's slide deck, starting from page 4
... page 8, web-platform-tests testsuite covers 60 specs and includes 3700 test files and we have 210,000 test results captured
... it is github based, uses testharness.js
... it runs on w3c-test.org site directly and one can also choose to use a local runner
... page 12 gives a sample js of calling testharness
... page 13 showing results
... one can run wptserve to run tests locally on a python web server
... it can run fully on the server if people prefer
... in summary, w3c provides an online testing framework and provides people the ability to run their own locally as well
... my recommendation is to go this direction

<kaz> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2015May/0024.html

-> http://www.w3.org/Voice/2013/scxml-irp/#tests Sample implementation report

kaz: we can generate this document manually from the information produced by running the framework
... we need to clarify all the features based on the spec and define them as assertions

paul: thank you, any comments or questions?

-> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests other specs' tests

<djensen47> Couldn't get to "unmute" fast enough. No comments yet.

paul: i want people to look at this further

adam: this looks reasonable to me but wonder how people will run this themselves on their platforms

kaz: we'll need to clarify what should be checked

adam: if we're just testing the interface. that might be the minimum needed for w3c rec track but group might want to check data coming back out

paul: you can't test an interface without testing the returns

kaz: it is more for testing the specification not implementations
... there are people looking to extend this for product conformance as well

dave: w3c doesn't currently have any framework for testing the api itself?

[kaz, should i see if denis or mike is available? he helped code this and may be able to give more details about extensibility]

<djensen47> mocha and jasmine

wonsuk: device api wg made a sensor api. do we need to check how they made their test cases using this platform?
... it would be good to see how they are doing it given the similarities

<djensen47> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/

wonsuk: i can take an action item to look into how they tested their api

denis ah-kang, mike smith and robin berjon from w3c

dominique hazel-massieux - re device api tests

<kaz> ACTION: ted to work with Kaz and other W3C Team mates, e.g., Denis, Mike, robin and Dom, on how to use the Web Testing Platform [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-auto-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - Work with kaz and other w3c team mates, e.g., denis, mike, robin and dom, on how to use the web testing platform [on Ted Guild - due 2015-05-26].

trackbot, status

ACTION: wonsuk to find out how Device API WG is handling testing of sensors API [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-auto-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Find out how device api wg is handling testing of sensors api [on WonSuk Lee - due 2015-05-26].

action-8 due 2015-07-01

<trackbot> Set action-8 Find out how device api wg is handling testing of sensors api due date to 2015-07-01.

Reviewing comments

paul: we have been collecting some comments in github repo on the spec
... some today from peter

<Paul> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues

paul: as luck would have it we have all the people who raised comments on the call

dave: for-in is used incorrectly

https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/1

dave: it can be fixed easily, see sample code

<kaz> Present now - Paul_Boyes, Adam_Abramski, Greg_Brannon, Dave_Jensen, Kevin_Gavigan, Kaz, Peter_Winzell, Qing_An, Ted_Guild, Wonsu_Lee

paul: as an administrative question should people submit pull requests?

ted: sure, first editors should add themselves as editors on the specs themselves. group created so they can handle pr

dave: the other i started discussion on ml, pointing back to old issue on bg repo about api design
... the readme doesn't have much content and pointers on how to get people more involved
... code guidelines, tools used, participation guidelines
... not sure where we want to organize all that, perhaps just a link to a wiki

wonsuk: it is a good idea

paul: qing an can you go over your comments?

qing:
... another is for the discovery api

https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/6

qing: we need to modify the current use case section for [voip issues]
... i think there are some problems in the zoneposition interface

Qing An clarified in email after the call:

• https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/5 [data_spec] nullable and non-nullable attribute definition, I suggest we need a clear statement that why some attributes are defined as nullable, while some are defined as non-nullable.
• https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/6 Discovery API: to discover the list of vehicle data interfaces, here I give an example of the Web IDL definition of Discovery API. I think we need a further discussion on whether this is suitable.
• https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/7 [data_spec] Use-Cases is not consistent with the interface function defined, I suggest we need rewrite the Use-Cases section, since some use cases described there are not covered in the existing interface
• https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/9 [vehicle_spec] enum type ZonePosition, here I mention there might be an mistake of the Zone interface definition
• https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/10 [vehicle_spec] Minor mistakes, this is just some minor mistakes about grammer

Peter: we need to be clearer in various areas, is there subscribe/unsubscribe features for callbacks for instance?

scribe: should we specify the data return values as well?

dave: yes and also how the data is specified
... on the auto bg (issues list) there were two comments made on the api
... one was about specifying the data returned. how is the data specified? is it suppose to be an interface or a dictionary?

https://github.com/w3c/automotive-bg/issues/49

<QingAn> https://github.com/w3c/automotive-bg/issues/49

ted: iirc the reaction kevron had is the various oem data points are going to vary too widely
... we had a call with them but not sure it was minuted

paul: i will need to swap back in on that. we are running out of time on this call
... it might be worth having a breakout call on issues alone

[scheduling discussion]

paul: i'll send something on timing for a semi-regular friday call, early my time since that is good for other