15:46:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webdriver
15:46:48 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/16-webdriver-irc
15:47:05 <AutomatedTester_> Meeting: TPAC 2022 - BTT WG - Day 2
15:47:19 <AutomatedTester_> Chair: David Burns
15:47:28 <AutomatedTester_> scribe: David Burns
15:47:37 <AutomatedTester_> scribeNick: AutomatedTester
15:48:10 <AutomatedTester_> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebDriver/TPAC-2022
15:48:24 <AutomatedTester> present+
15:48:48 <AutomatedTester> rrsagent: make logs world-visible
15:48:58 <AutomatedTester> rrsagent: make minutes
15:48:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/16-webdriver-minutes.html AutomatedTester
15:53:15 <MichaelMintz> MichaelMintz has joined #webdriver
15:53:38 <patrickangle> present+
15:55:10 <JimEvans> present+
15:56:04 <patrickangle> Orca is the zoom room I should be in, right?
15:59:30 <BrandonWalderman> present+
15:59:40 <jgraham> present+
16:02:43 <zcorpan> zcorpan has joined #webdriver
16:02:56 <jgraham> RRSAgent: make minutes
16:02:56 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/16-webdriver-minutes.html jgraham
16:04:26 <sadym> present+
16:04:57 <MichaelMintz> present+
16:07:17 <DevinRousso> DevinRousso has joined #webdriver
16:07:33 <DevinRousso> present+
16:08:05 <AutomatedTester> topic: Network logging
16:08:07 <AutomatedTester> git
16:08:08 <PeterRushforth> PeterRushforth has joined #webdriver
16:08:19 <AutomatedTester> github: https://github.com/w3c/webdriver-bidi/pull/204
16:08:31 <PeterRushforth> present+
16:09:19 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): we have a PR up for introducing a network module that gives you a series of events to get netwrok activity
16:09:32 <AutomatedTester> ... it's limited to HTTP like connections only
16:09:41 <AutomatedTester> ... the use cases we are targeting are
16:09:53 <AutomatedTester> ... check whether a specific resource was requested
16:10:08 <AutomatedTester> ... and generating HAR files for perf monitoring
16:10:29 <AutomatedTester> ... we have discussed this in previous meetings which has shaped this
16:10:55 <AutomatedTester> ... we have added 1 set of events unlike the way CDP handles this
16:11:19 <AutomatedTester> ... and if we get a redirect we would add a flag to show that
16:11:44 <AutomatedTester> ... the API and how it works is still to be written
16:12:19 <AutomatedTester> ... and at this point what i would like to do is make sure that we don't have issues with the initial design before we start on the fetch integration
16:12:36 <AutomatedTester> ... otherwise it will be a lot of work to go back and redo it
16:12:37 <AutomatedTester> q?
16:13:39 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: i like that this is simpler, it's nice
16:14:20 <AutomatedTester> automatedtester: Where is this in your priority list?
16:14:33 <prushforth> prushforth has joined #webdriver
16:14:37 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): this is pretty high in my list.
16:14:55 <AutomatedTester> ... we would liek to start prototyping this
16:15:40 <sadym> q+
16:15:47 <AutomatedTester> ... from our point it is not blocked on the fetch work that needs to happen but it would be good to get agreement on the api etc
16:16:01 <AutomatedTester> ack next
16:16:42 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): how would the interception of redirects work since there is only 1 event/
16:17:15 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): for logging we discussed in a previous group meeting
16:17:27 <AutomatedTester> ... the rough concensus then was to have 1 event and flags on it
16:17:42 <AutomatedTester> ... instead of events for all of the redirect chain
16:18:07 <AutomatedTester> ... assuming we are happy with that design
16:18:39 <AutomatedTester> ... [describes fields that could be added to the event]
16:19:08 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: would the request ID be maintained the whole time?
16:19:16 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): I hadn't thought about that
16:19:42 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: [describes how it works in web inspector]
16:20:48 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: so as long as we use the same request iD for the network journey. For redirects we want to have the same ID or have a field saying it's a redirect
16:20:57 <AutomatedTester> ... i prefer the former but can make either work
16:21:04 <AutomatedTester> q?
16:22:00 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): if you look through the current PR. there are TODO items in there that need answers. We can discuss
16:22:35 <sadym> @foolip is about to review the PR
16:22:47 <AutomatedTester> ... or people could answer on the PR
16:22:55 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: generally speaking we like this
16:23:51 <AutomatedTester> topic: Cookies
16:24:29 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): This is something that doesn't have an open issue
16:24:45 <jgraham> https://github.com/w3c/webdriver-bidi/issues/287
16:24:48 <jgraham> github: https://github.com/w3c/webdriver-bidi/issues/287
16:25:21 <AutomatedTester> the high level item for this topic is that we need ot have something here like webdriver classic
16:25:41 <AutomatedTester> ... I assume that people want this
16:26:48 <AutomatedTester> ... how do we want this to work?
16:27:33 <AutomatedTester> ... and then we have partitioned cookies do we want the API to return everything or just for the part of the partition?
16:27:54 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: in web inspector we have both
16:28:35 <AutomatedTester> ... in CDP network domain returns a list of cookies that could have been sent, including ones that could have been blocked
16:29:05 <AutomatedTester> ... e.g 3rd party cookies blocked by policy
16:29:37 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: I think we should go for the simpler option here as all cookies seems heavy handed
16:29:45 <AutomatedTester> q?
16:29:49 <AutomatedTester> q+
16:30:20 <BrandonWalderman> q+
16:31:03 <DevinRousso> q+
16:31:33 <jgraham> AutomatedTester: One of the things that comes up when dealing with cookies is the ability to set before you navigate to a page. IN WebDriver classic you can only set for the current page. It would be good to have the ability to interact directly with the cookie store without requiring a navigation.
16:31:34 <AutomatedTester> ack next
16:31:46 <AutomatedTester> ack next
16:32:17 <AutomatedTester> Brandon Walderman: we're debating whether to show all cookies on a page or to a domain?
16:32:48 <AutomatedTester> ... if we're talking about adding a cookie domain that could straight to the cookie jar and doesn't need a network reques?
16:33:18 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): I think like AutomatedTester_ (IRC) said, we want an aPi that allows us to interact with the cookie jar
16:34:06 <AutomatedTester> ... the comment about network request was more 'do we want to emulate CDP'? or do our own? i can't see use cases yet?
16:34:33 <AutomatedTester> Brandon Walderman: a web dev might want to test their site with different level s of tracking being blocked during testing
16:34:45 <AutomatedTester> q?
16:34:48 <AutomatedTester> ack next
16:36:05 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: as far your point AutomatedTester_ (IRC) I thinkj this will be handled by network interception
16:36:09 <jgraham> q+
16:37:09 <AutomatedTester> ... a user could set this while setting up the network interception and they would set the cookie and away they go
16:37:23 <AutomatedTester> ack next
16:38:13 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): in interception there a way to handle that and we should and I think that we should also add a cookie API. Interception could be overkill for some usecases
16:38:16 <JimEvans> q+
16:38:26 <karlcow> karlcow has joined #webdriver
16:38:49 <AutomatedTester> ... I think that this isn't provin to be uncontroversial
16:39:04 <AutomatedTester> ... we can discuss more in the PR
16:39:08 <AutomatedTester> ack next
16:39:50 <DevinRousso> q+
16:40:06 <AutomatedTester> Jim Evans: it feels like the design goal of being able to implement classic on top of bidi not having an API that directly accessing it
16:40:15 <AutomatedTester> ack next
16:40:52 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: my comment on network interception is that was purely for AutomatedTester_ (IRC) 's example but I do think that we need an API for interaction with the cookie jar
16:42:11 <AutomatedTester> topic: Should `BrowsingContext.create` wait for the initial page to be loaded?
16:42:22 <AutomatedTester> github: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/35846
16:43:14 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): the question was raised in the wpt test that faced during the test
16:43:44 <AutomatedTester> ... we weren't sure if the initial events for the navigation to about:blank would be handled
16:43:47 <jgraham> q+
16:44:44 <AutomatedTester> ... guarantee that we don't raise any events until browsingContext create is completed
16:45:34 <sadym> Guarantee no initial navigation-related events are raised AFTER the browsingContext.create command is done.
16:45:52 <AutomatedTester> s/guarantee that we don't raise any events until browsingContext create is completed/Guarantee no initial navigation-related events are raised AFTER the browsingContext.create command is done.
16:45:58 <AutomatedTester> ack next
16:46:15 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): i think what we want to guarantee for users
16:46:37 <AutomatedTester> ... is that we want the first event needs to be browsingContext.create event
16:46:45 <AutomatedTester> ... and not the load events
16:47:07 <AutomatedTester> ... the open question is do you then get a load event for the about;blank page/
16:47:44 <AutomatedTester> ... and I know there there are changes in gecko to align with chromium/webkit
16:48:01 <AutomatedTester> ... for the sake of wpt this should be enoug
16:48:12 <AutomatedTester> ... and the clients it makes their lives easier
16:48:49 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): what you said is slightly orthogonal to what I am mentioning
16:49:23 <AutomatedTester> ... browsercontext load and [other event] are done after create
16:49:34 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): are you suggesting we don't send them/
16:49:41 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): yes,
16:50:05 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): is this more with how the command returns to the user/
16:50:09 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): yes
16:50:18 <gsnedders> AutomatedTester: I'm trying my best.
16:51:09 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): if i create a new context and doesn't navigate you should get a create event but not a load event for about;blank
16:51:24 <AutomatedTester> ... what about a navigation given/
16:51:33 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): we don't allow the navigation/
16:51:44 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): so is this just the ordering/
16:51:47 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): yes
16:52:27 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): [explains
16:52:41 <AutomatedTester> ... how it works another use case]
16:53:08 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): I am not confident how this would work with about:blank
16:53:17 <AutomatedTester> ... and I don't know how this should work
16:53:44 <AutomatedTester> ... for making the tests work why don't we just make sure the context created event
16:54:02 <AutomatedTester> ... or do we need to have all the events/
16:54:38 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): in the test we can rely that there are no events after the create
16:54:50 <AutomatedTester> ... what happens before could be implementation specific
16:55:18 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): i think that sounds fine to me... especially since about;blank is special
16:55:26 <AutomatedTester> q?
16:55:37 <jgraham> _initial_ about:blank is special
16:56:27 <AutomatedTester> topic: Network request interception
16:56:39 <AutomatedTester> github: https://github.com/w3c/webdriver-bidi/issues/66
16:58:16 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): This is a more speculative item
16:58:40 <AutomatedTester> ... and I want to start work on the design so we can get it a little done over the next year
16:58:57 <AutomatedTester> ... we have talked about network logging to get some info
16:59:13 <AutomatedTester> ... but sometimes people want to intercept, modify and carry that on
16:59:46 <AutomatedTester> ... people want to intercept a request and send back a mocked response
16:59:59 <AutomatedTester> ... so I think this is a feature we should have
17:00:11 <AutomatedTester> q+
17:00:53 <AutomatedTester> ... so one thing here is that network interception can put a lot of pressure on the client to handle each
17:01:24 <sadym> q+
17:01:30 <AutomatedTester> ... and since some people test this locally and that's fine but we do have selenium users have this over the internet
17:02:10 <AutomatedTester> ... the proposal is there is an event for browsing context/realms and with some form of filter
17:02:23 <AutomatedTester> ... we have network events
17:02:50 <AutomatedTester> ... do we want separate events or use the logging and then return
17:03:34 <AutomatedTester> q?
17:05:05 <jgraham> AutomatedTester: My experience is that people using this feature in Selenium are confused about how this should/will work. For e2e testing this can be complex compared to lower level testing. Need to make it easier to use.
17:05:53 <jgraham> ... To the point about this being deployed over the internet, we can be talking about hundreds of requests that need to be intercepted. So prefiltering of events is a requirement.
17:06:24 <DevinRousso> q+
17:06:30 <jgraham> ... I'm concerned that this could cause a problematic number of events for Selenium in the cloud providers
17:06:37 <AutomatedTester> ack next
17:06:48 <AutomatedTester> ack next
17:07:18 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): first question is add some kind of binding to the realm
17:07:46 <AutomatedTester> ... and try have this done in the browser and then return
17:08:15 <sadym> https://chromedevtools.github.io/devtools-protocol/tot/Network/#type-RequestPattern
17:08:21 <AutomatedTester> ... and then AutomatedTester_ (IRC) do you think that URL, resource type and interception stage is enough/
17:10:23 <jgraham> AutomatedTester: Yes, that seems fine. To the point about doing this on the remote end, if we can figure it out I'd prefer that kind of solution. Pushing everything onto the client is a problem if things are running in parallel; can end up with a huge number of simultaneous requests. Server side interception would fix that. But the filters are a good start.
17:10:32 <AutomatedTester> ack next
17:11:17 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: within web inspector we have filters and it can even be at filtering on request/response
17:11:35 <AutomatedTester> ... webinspector doesnt have the resouirce type filtering
17:11:50 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): it's useful for changing cats to dogs on a page
17:12:36 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): I can see resource filtering for all images then go for there
17:13:10 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: in web inspector we only allow filtering on EITHER request or response...
17:13:40 <AutomatedTester> ... our reason is if you control one or the other then it's easier
17:14:08 <AutomatedTester> ... we still send out the requests in case the server requires it
17:14:26 <jgraham> q?
17:14:29 <AutomatedTester> ... it saves us trouble
17:15:04 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): web extensions has a similar aPI here
17:15:33 <AutomatedTester> ... does your api have overlap with web extensions
17:15:49 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: there is some but I don't know if they have full overlap
17:16:13 <AutomatedTester> ... I don't have much knowledge of manifest v3
17:18:02 <AutomatedTester> Luka: in chrome they have deprecated the interception API
17:18:30 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): the stream API gives us what we need and we can manipulate it
17:18:53 <AutomatedTester> luka: [mentions how this works with streams]
17:19:48 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): [describes how things work in CDP]
17:20:59 <AutomatedTester> ... the main question is Do we start with how CDP works or how sadym (IRC) suggested that it happens in a sandbox specific way
17:21:38 <AutomatedTester> ... and I have a concern about how we this might work as we haven't got the primatives to make it work
17:22:05 <AutomatedTester> ... and we want to make sure we support clients that already here
17:22:43 <AutomatedTester> ... and it would be good to make sure we check how other groups are using it and then see if we can support them
17:23:09 <sadym> q+
17:23:55 <BrandonWalderman> q+
17:24:30 <AutomatedTester> AutomatedTester_ (IRC): I would vote for sadym (IRC) 's idea of putting this more onto the server
17:24:31 <BrandonWalderman> q-
17:24:57 <AutomatedTester> ack next
17:25:32 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): i want to point out that it adds complexity to the server
17:25:44 <AutomatedTester> ... so it's harder to implement and spec out
17:26:01 <jgraham> `getResponseBody` is used in Puppeteer/Playwright but `takeResponseBodyAsStream` is not.
17:26:55 <jgraham> q+
17:27:53 <karlcow> karlcow has joined #webdriver
17:28:03 <BrandonWalderman> q+
17:28:26 <AutomatedTester> automatedtester: My preference would be to add more complexity to this working group so that people can use this feature in a meaningful way rather than simplifying things for the sake of the spec and putting a lot of pressure on client authors and users and then no one uses the feature
17:28:40 <AutomatedTester> ack next
17:29:21 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): I am not convinced for clients that injecting Js would be easier for them
17:29:44 <AutomatedTester> ... there are perf reasons for injecting it all
17:30:36 <AutomatedTester> ... so for the first iteration that we all people to replace the responses but not modify on the fly
17:30:40 <AutomatedTester> q?
17:30:44 <AutomatedTester> ack next
17:30:45 <jgraham> s/all/allow/
17:31:20 <AutomatedTester> Brandon Walderman: I do see the value of pushing things on to the server side for perf and ease of client creation
17:31:45 <AutomatedTester> ... but I am hearing that there is concern of doing it in a sandbox
17:32:22 <AutomatedTester> ... I wonder if there is a middle ground here where we can do some form of [explains data structures]
17:32:37 <AutomatedTester> ... that way we can block things easily
17:32:56 <AutomatedTester> ... and if you want more advanced cases then we can do more CDP
17:33:07 <jgraham> q+
17:33:14 <AutomatedTester> ... and we can add the sandbox solution in the future
17:33:21 <AutomatedTester> ack next
17:33:21 <sadym> q+
17:34:22 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): I think it will add more work
17:35:05 <sadym> q-
17:35:15 <sadym> +1 to what James said
17:35:28 <BrandonWalderman> +1
17:35:28 <AutomatedTester> ... we can add a more declaritive later
17:35:50 <AutomatedTester> ... and that way we don't need to have a more complex JS execution
17:36:19 <AutomatedTester> ... it would be good to get a set of data from cloud providers here
17:36:45 <AutomatedTester> ... but build the low level APi and we can build a higher level API later
17:36:55 <AutomatedTester> q?
17:55:27 <karlcow> karlcow has joined #webdriver
18:05:00 <karlcow> karlcow has joined #webdriver
18:05:20 <AutomatedTester> topic: Bootstrap scripts
18:05:46 <AutomatedTester> Github: https://github.com/w3c/webdriver-bidi/issues/65
18:06:52 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): The concept here is we have a method that allows a script to be injected and run before a page is loaded
18:07:26 <AutomatedTester> ... the use case is we can define functionality that will be guaranteed when we access the page
18:07:44 <AutomatedTester> ... and we don't need to worry about racing with loading
18:07:55 <AutomatedTester> ... my reason for adding this to the agenda
18:08:32 <AutomatedTester> ... in berlin there was a talk about priorities
18:08:33 <DevinRousso> q+
18:08:42 <AutomatedTester> ... and seeing that it is in a number of clients
18:08:50 <AutomatedTester> ... so my questions are
18:08:58 <AutomatedTester> ... what is the priority of this work?
18:09:08 <AutomatedTester> ... and what is the MVP to make this feature useful
18:09:31 <AutomatedTester> ack next
18:10:02 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: one of the reasons I suggested this in 2019 is that itenables us to do things without having to creating new events
18:10:22 <AutomatedTester> ... it gives us access to the events and apis that are there
18:10:58 <AutomatedTester> ... I think that this important but it's behind the networking interception
18:11:10 <sadym> q+
18:11:11 <AutomatedTester> ... it's important and we should do it
18:11:44 <AutomatedTester> q?
18:11:51 <AutomatedTester> ack next
18:11:56 <DevinRousso> AutomatedTester: i think it'd be more accurate to say they're both kinda equal in my mind?
18:12:18 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): it's high priority as it's required in puppeteer
18:12:57 <AutomatedTester> ... it was raised in berlin that it was going to be used by selenium to do things with the DOM
18:13:04 <AutomatedTester> ... so it's a high priority
18:13:09 <AutomatedTester> q?
18:13:10 <sadym> is was mutationObserver
18:13:20 <DevinRousso> ^ yeah that's one use case I see for it
18:13:23 <DevinRousso> a big one
18:13:48 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): there is agreement that clients want it and it has a reasonable priority
18:13:59 <AutomatedTester> ... so the next thing is how do we get there?
18:14:20 <AutomatedTester> ... so the proposal is fairly complicated because it has a lot of filtering
18:14:38 <jgraham> https://chromedevtools.github.io/devtools-protocol/tot/Page/#method-addScriptToEvaluateOnNewDocument
18:14:42 <AutomatedTester> ... but cDP just wants us to run things
18:14:58 <DevinRousso> +1 to having it be just "here's a script to run, i'll figure out what to do in JS myself"
18:15:13 <jgraham> https://github.com/w3c/webdriver-bidi/issues/157
18:15:24 <AutomatedTester> ... one of the things here is that the JS  might want to communicate back the client
18:15:39 <AutomatedTester> ... and we have punted on that so we might need to solve that first before coming back to this
18:16:33 <AutomatedTester> ... looking at this issue the main issue is how do you configure this since its before the page is loaded
18:17:16 <AutomatedTester> ... [describes how this runs in a function]
18:18:09 <jgraham> q?
18:20:40 <DevinRousso> q+
18:20:50 <jgraham> q+
18:21:11 <AutomatedTester> ack next
18:21:27 <sadym> q+ > it should still be a platform object
18:22:00 <sadym> q+
18:22:04 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: I think the webdriver side to comms this looks fine
18:22:43 <AutomatedTester> ... there is a extension scopes in webkit that allows us to be able do some extensions when running
18:23:18 <AutomatedTester> ... and I am not against having this have be a function
18:23:48 <AutomatedTester> ... mesage port seems fine but we don't need everything on it
18:24:19 <AutomatedTester> ... and it would be good to describe the data that is sent back
18:24:42 <AutomatedTester> ... [describes a use case]
18:24:56 <AutomatedTester> q?
18:25:00 <AutomatedTester> ack next
18:25:31 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): treating this a stack, when serialsing we wont be doing anything special in this context
18:25:39 <DevinRousso> AutomatedTester: e.g. sending a DOM node back to the driver, which would do some sort of conversion to some format that the driver can handle (ideally the same primitives used elsewhere in WebDriver)
18:25:59 <AutomatedTester> ... so javascript objects are serialised back
18:26:10 <AutomatedTester> ... to discuss the previous design spaces
18:26:31 <AutomatedTester> ... in cDp there is an add binding method that allows it to be available globally
18:26:45 <DevinRousso> q+
18:26:46 <AutomatedTester> ... there are 2 other options
18:27:13 <AutomatedTester> ... we might want to message from a non-bootstrapped script to others
18:27:42 <AutomatedTester> ... the other option is we have special value the client sends to handle this like a message port but not quite a message port
18:28:13 <AutomatedTester> ... it puts the client in charge here as they can create the port and tells the browser
18:28:57 <AutomatedTester> ...an advantage of separate ports is that it becomes implicit in the protocol
18:29:06 <AutomatedTester> q?
18:29:10 <AutomatedTester> ack next
18:30:13 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): it will be a little complicated to implement it in chromium
18:30:24 <AutomatedTester> ... it exposes things globally but not to all realms
18:30:40 <AutomatedTester> ... there is not concept of a binding argument
18:30:49 <AutomatedTester> q?
18:32:09 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC): my understand of CDP is that you can do add binding because you don't know what the realm id will be for the boostrap script
18:32:46 <AutomatedTester> ... so you can sandbox the bootstrap script and that limits to where it canrun
18:32:52 <AutomatedTester> sadym (IRC): that is true
18:33:20 <AutomatedTester> ... when you bootstrap you can describe how the script will be called in the sandbox
18:33:23 <AutomatedTester> q?
18:33:28 <AutomatedTester> ack next
18:34:03 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: in webkit I think we do it when the realm is created
18:34:37 <AutomatedTester> ... and I am not sure we can filter as there are things we don't want to expose everything to the client
18:36:26 <AutomatedTester> ... I think it would be better to basic and primative and let the driver do it but if we want to do something more complex that is fine too. It's managing state there...
18:36:50 <AutomatedTester> ... isolatedvs in the page... we can do that later
18:37:06 <AutomatedTester> ... in either scenario we can do it as scope extension
18:37:12 <jgraham> q+
18:37:31 <AutomatedTester> ... and we can give them the building blocks to do the right thing for them
18:38:00 <AutomatedTester> ... in the scenario where the driver provides the script to say run this everywhere...
18:38:15 <AutomatedTester> ... I can see there be an event when the bootstrap script is created
18:38:46 <AutomatedTester> ... and get people to listen
18:38:57 <AutomatedTester> ... i can see both ways working
18:39:10 <AutomatedTester> q?
18:39:14 <AutomatedTester> ack next
18:39:48 <AutomatedTester> jgraham (IRC):I am hearing we want this feature and we want the scripts to run in a sandbox... or not
18:40:06 <AutomatedTester> ... and there is a need for some form of messaging coming out of those scripts
18:40:21 <AutomatedTester> ... that seems reasonable to me
18:40:38 <AutomatedTester> ... I don't know how easy it will be to implement it
18:41:07 <AutomatedTester> ... in the sandbox case it will be the most useful
18:41:40 <AutomatedTester> Devin Rousso: I think the non-sandboxed version being the most useful
18:41:51 <AutomatedTester> ... I think we will need both
18:45:05 <AutomatedTester> q?
18:54:07 <sadym> could you please repeat the proposed dates?
18:54:51 <DevinRousso> i believe it was 11/28-12/02
18:54:51 <AutomatedTester> rrsagent: Make minutes
18:54:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/16-webdriver-minutes.html AutomatedTester
18:55:34 <AutomatedTester> zakim: bye
18:55:51 <AutomatedTester> rrsagent: bye
18:55:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items