<scribe> scribenick: kaz
<McCool> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/PlugFest_WebConf#Agenda_14.11.2018
McCool: Agenda above
... (goes through the agenda)
... any comments? input?
(none)
McCool: scanned the TD spec HTML
... and extracted assertions
... also unique ID
... for the actual report
... a set of implementations
... Pass/Fail/Not Implemented
... assumption of test suite
Draft Implementation Report (rendered version)
McCool: appendices
... about test specification
... first thing is
... what is the implementation?
... I have my system myself
... single implementation
... but how to count?
... and created a template here (at section 6. System)
... simple HTML template
... every company provides testimonial
... and description on your implementation
... maybe my system includes 3 separate implementations
... will create a concrete template next week
... and test spec
Testspec document (rendered version)
McCool: CSV stuff
... can be easily merged
... implementation described
... updated with header information, e.g., ID, Pass, Fail,
...
... we can add more information
... test1.csv
... test2.csv
... as 2 example inputs
... to be merged
... we need this "Pass" column to be more than 1
Ege: in this case
... TD generator
... not TD itself
... test implementation is done through TDs
McCool: any behavioral
assertions
... coordinate with TDs
Kaz: we can provide typical
example TDs
... as part of test suite
McCool: providing TD is not
enough
... TD itself should be part of implementations
... we can/should update leading text at "6. Systems" a
bit
... "This section contains testimonials..."
... TD is provided by the server side
... constrained behavior of clients
Ege: what kind of?
McCool: to be decided
... we should go through the implementations
... and see corresponding assertions
... possibly have a separate table
... test cases against them
... will work on the template for the report at "6.
Systems"
... and CSV files to include header
... and create appropriate data
Ege: these assertions are of
different types
... maybe better to have different sub sections?
McCool: maybe correct
... originally tried to group them
... but kind of awkward
... would like to see categorization later
Lagally: possible to have spec chapter numbers?
McCool: came from not only one
section
... can list related section numbers, though
Lagally: interesting
McCool: will fix the hyperlinks and
make them correct
... HTML bashing
... capturing section number here
... also we don't really have the "sub constraint"
structure
Dave: we should have client-side tests
McCool: we should draft what kind of exercise we need
Matthias: assertions still
missing
... about what the clients should do
... we should define the meaning
... how the client must behave
McCool: agree we need client
constraint
... but what should be the process?
Kaz: when to start concrete
review?
... still need help to generate the initial assertion list?
McCool: can generate some additional
assertions using a separate color, e.g., based on the plugfest
results
... and see corresponding features within the TD spec
Matthias: ok
... but you don't have to do that by yourself
... e.g., Editors should also do it
McCool: right
... we can go through the plugfest reports and pick up possible
assertions
... e.g., about client behavior
... will generate initial PR within 24H
... and talk with Sebastian
McCool: some questions about the format
Matthias: quick reviewed
... panasonic and hitachi started to use table
Lagally: can do another round to update the report with new template if needed
McCool: note each company may have
multiple implementations
... let's give a unique identifier to each
... for interoperability test later
Lagally: we had a lot of
simulators
... not sure how we should handle them
McCool: would count a simulator one implementation
Lagally: one implementation for one simulator?
Matthias: e.g., Oracle simulator is one implementation
Lagally: code-base is a clear definition
McCool: yes
... separate code-base
Kaz: make sense
McCool: panasonic, hitachi, want to walk through the reports?
https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-lyon/result-panasonic.md
Yamada: 3 points here
... summary picture
... tables of confirmed implementations
... browser-based, nodeRED-based
... and use cases
... semantic integration scenarios
... first
... the diagram
... nodeRED connected with devices via proxies, wot servers
<mkovatsc> Need to clarify "NG" entry -- either "NO" or "NA"
Yamada: some field has "NG"
... with browser-based implementation
... and nodeRED-based one
... issue with OCF.json which had multiple entries
Kaz: do you expect only one TD entry within a TD file?
Yamada: right
... because TD playground expected so
McCool: maybe we need to have an exec
summary?
... e.g., at the top of the document?
Lagally: have a summary section at the top of my report
Kaz: also Matthias pointed out we
should clarify which NG means
... NO or NA
Toru: maybe we can update the table based on the legend
https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-lyon/result-hitachi.md
Toumura: followed the style of
Panasonic
... TDs linked from the table
... almost all the devices got connected
... no big problems with connection
... 4. Use cases
... use case scenario
... remote monitoring and multimodal alerting
... realtime control
... Rube Goldberg
... chain reaction
... intrusion detector
McCool: CORS mentioned in the
report
... useful metadata?
Toumura: our implementation didn't handle CORS
Toru: one of the Panasonic
implementations was browser-based
... some of the browsers could handle it
... but some couldn't
McCool: crate an issue?
... part of the security issues
<McCool> https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/issues/121
McCool: a couple of hours during the
2nd week of Dec
... probably two meeting?
... two hours at least per one meeting
<scribe> ACTION: kaz to create a doodle for the assertion review call
McCool: other plugfest reports to be
provided based on the updated template (with a table)
... will updated the draft implementation report with
assertions
Lagally: regarding the update for
plugfest report
... based on the table from panasonic/hitachi reports?
Kaz: we can include an empty
table based on Panasonic table
... also exec summary at the top of the template
McCool: we can ask Panasonic to copy the table to the template?
Lagally: can quickly skim Oracle report?
https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/plugfest/2018-lyon/results-oracle.md
McCool: someone knows the template structure should update the template.md
Toru: Panasonic can do that
McCool: great
Lagally: thanks!
[adjourned]