11:10:33 RRSAgent has joined #wot-script 11:10:33 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/30-wot-script-irc 11:10:45 meeting: WoT Scripting API 11:10:46 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner 11:10:46 chair: Daniel 11:10:47 present+ Cristiano_Aguzzi 11:10:49 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#30_August_2021 11:10:51 scribenick: kaz 11:10:53 topic: Minutes 11:10:55 -> https://www.w3.org/2021/08/23-wot-script-minutes.html Aug-23 11:10:59 dp: (goes through the minutes 11:11:01 s/minutes/minutes)/ 11:11:03 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis 11:11:05 dp: approved and will be published 11:11:07 topic: PRs 11:11:09 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/332 PR 332 11:11:11 rrsagent, make log public 11:11:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 11:11:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/30-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 11:11:35 i/PR 332/subtopic: PR 332/ 11:12:03 s/332 PR 332/332 PR 332 - fix: links *new* typescript folder/ 11:12:08 scribenick: zkis 11:12:08 scribenick: zkis 11:12:41 DP: the PR fixes a small issue with links 11:14:11 SUBTOPIC: Label Table, https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/333 11:14:59 DP: updates the labels we use in github 11:15:34 ... and documents it 11:16:18 DP: there are a lot of unused labels (without any issues using them), propose to remove them. 11:16:42 ZK: makes sense 11:17:06 CA: I would keep some labels, like bug and duplicate, they might be still useful 11:17:18 ... I've seen them in other repositories as well 11:17:29 DP: we don't use them right now 11:17:40 CA: I think that is not a problem with such generic labels 11:18:29 DP: should we also include these in the Readme< 11:18:42 s/Readme CA: yes, why not 11:19:03 q? 11:20:07 ZK: a table in a readme needs maintaining, syncing with the real labels 11:20:17 DP: we could also link to the github generated list 11:20:24 ZK: and include descriptions there 11:20:33 q? 11:20:55 KA: I'm fine with keeping several unused labels 11:21:19 ... we should be consistent across the whole WG how to use labels 11:21:26 ... propose to discuss this in the main call 11:21:48 ... it's fine to remove unused labels, and to use github descriptions to labels 11:22:17 DP: OK, things are converging, we can do this way 11:23:17 CA: +1 for discussing within the WG 11:23:21 i|OK|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/labels GitHub labels for wot-scripting-api repo| 11:23:40 DP: so I will modify the PR to just link to the label list 11:25:33 Topic: issues discussion 11:25:44 DP: we can talk about discovery and TD 11:26:23 ... the discussion about writeProperty() was discussed in the TD TF, but many calls were canceled and we should wait on that 11:26:32 ... any preferred topics? 11:26:58 SUBTOPIC: Separate ExposedThing API, https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/303 11:26:58 CA: trying to implement the separate ExposedThing API in node-wot 11:28:40 CA: do we have consensus about this change? 11:28:49 DP: it's a bit scattered over issues 11:29:13 CA: should I experiment in node-wot about this? 11:29:27 ZK: I think yes 11:30:19 DP: we dropped ExposedThing extending ConsumedThing 11:30:29 ZK: and they are is separate conformance classes already 11:30:38 CA: so the issue is something more, right? 11:32:30 ZK: it was mainly to separate ExposedThing to a different spec (client-server API separation) 11:32:46 CA: so it's about split implementation, and maybe split spec? 11:33:01 DP: I am not sure this is where we should head towards 11:33:16 ... we do have 3 conformance classes already 11:33:28 ... splitting the doc doesn't seem necessary 11:33:39 s/they are is/they are in/ 11:34:33 DP: asking ZK to take a look at the issue and eventually rename it 11:35:00 i|DP:|-> https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/#conformance wot-scripting - 3. Conformance| 11:35:09 SUBTOPIC: TypeScript - Type DataSchemaValue circularly references itself, https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/301 11:35:27 DP: checking to close/remove it 11:35:30 Mizushima has joined #wot-script 11:35:36 ... it's solved already, so removing it 11:36:24 Subtopic: error handling 11:36:30 Error Handling, https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/200 11:36:47 DP: this is a bit unclear, also raised in the WoT Profile TF 11:37:01 ... it's not easy to detect which binding the issue appeared in 11:37:58 ZK: should WoT abstract not only the positive protocol outcomes, but also the negative ones? 11:40:37 DP: in some cases it would be good to know about the bindings error info 11:40:54 ... we already have some way to select a form index 11:41:49 ZK: it has privacy reasons to hide that information from web pages 11:42:33 DP: Ege provided an error mapping list, but I think it gets very nasty with more protocols added 11:42:46 ... so what should we do with this issue? 11:44:51 ZK: this is a runtime issue, we could use log levels 11:45:06 CA: log levels make it inconvenient to use from application logic 11:45:19 ... it would be better to standardize the list of errors 11:45:29 ... if we can do mapping, it will be the best option 11:45:55 ... but even if not, developers should be able to do something about the errors from the proper code 11:46:12 ... not only for debugging, but for alternative business logis 11:46:17 s/logis/logic 11:47:14 ZK: let's leave this open then, it's important because it may affect the API shape 11:48:04 DP: we could have the mapping, and for each method list the errors 11:49:11 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/200 see also the Issue 200 - Error Handling 11:49:59 ZK: we already have that in the algorithms 11:50:11 DP: we still miss e.g. NotFoundError 11:51:25 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/#the-readproperty-method e.g., 7.4 The readProperty() method 11:51:39 ZK: then let's make a separate issue about that 11:52:54 DP: OK, creating an issue 11:53:09 CA: we should re-read the spec, looking for things that can go sideways 11:53:27 ... not sure we are covering all the use cases 11:54:10 DP: we do use NotFoundError in node-wot 12:00:53 DP: also, we may use multiple security levels, global level and form level 12:01:17 CA: right now we just have global security, e.g. you can either read or not a property 12:01:41 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:01:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/30-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:01:49 DP: time out, we continue in the issues 12:02:06 adjourned 12:02:06 [adjourned] 12:02:12 s/[adjourned]// 12:02:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:02:13 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/30-wot-script-minutes.html kaz