W3C

– DRAFT –
WoT Plugfest/Testing

06 April 2022

Attendees

Present
Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner, David_Ezel, Ege_Korkan, Fady_Salama, Kaz_Ashimura, Kunihiko_Toumura, Michael_McCool, Ryuichi_Matsukura, Tomoaki_Mizushima
Regrets
-
Chair
Kaz
Scribe
kaz

Meeting minutes

Agenda

mainly manual CSV demo

Previous minutes

Mar-30

Fady: (goes through the minutes)

approved

Manual CSV demo

<Fady> https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/blob/main/events/2022.03.Online/TD/manual.csv

Fady: we can't verify those assertions automatically

McCool: maybe should put the information to the README there too

Fady: ok

Ege: all the implementors are encourage to open this file

McCool: should be clear about the naming convention

Kaz: btw, I'm not really sure if this is a "demo"
… do you actually want to "explain" what the manual.csv file includes?

Fady: right
… because got questions from people about the file

Kaz: ok
… and then so far only you, Fady, and Ege are the contributors

Fady: right

manual.csv file on GitHub

Fady: (shows the manual.csv file on his local PC with Excel)
… so that I can show how to edit it
… (goes through the assertions one by one)
… (starting with "bindings-requirements-scheme")

McCool: regarding "client-*", if your implementation is not a Consumer, it's not related

Fady: right

Kaz: some kind of guideline should be clarified
… e.g., validate the data using playground beforehand, then check your implementation based on the check list
… we should clarify how to use this so that all the WoT implementors including those who are not here can also understand how to use this

McCool: btw, probably we should remove the iana-* assertions from here

Fady: ok
… (and then removes those assertions)

Kaz: btw, it would be nicer to make the "D" column shorter so that we can see the assertion, result and description at once

Fady: (changes the width of the description column)

Kaz: regarding "server-data-schema-extras" assertion
… if we really want people to check the data response based on the data schemas in addition to the spec description itself, we should clarify that assumption as a guideline

Ege: given the time for today, would like to continue to work with Fady

Kaz: in that case, you'll work with Fady to generate a guideline for the next call?

Ege: yes
… and will generate a PR for that purpose before the next call

Kaz: and McCool also can give comments possibly before the call

[adjourned]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).