See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: Ian
mike5: Marcos sent an email the other say summarizing some progress on testing
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2017Jun/0023.html
scribe: he estimated we are at
about 20% complete as far as the number of tests we have in the
test suite and the coverage
... I agree with the assessment
Mike: We need to get to 100% to get out of CR
Start here for test suite info
Mike5: Our focus is payment
request API at this time
... I also want to mention that while the test suite is useful
for W3C's process requirements, its primary benefits are
improving implementations and the spec
... Marcos pointed out that some of the tests caused browser
crashes in multiple browser.
... that's good!
... we want to keep doing this.
... so far the effort has been modest (only a small number of
people) the benefits have been important
... we need people to write tests and people to review those
tests
... if you would like to author tests:
<MikeSmith> #testing on irc.w3.org
Mike5: we have a test channel on
IRC
... and please coordinate work so we don't overlap in
effort
... it takes (IMO) as much time to review tests as to write
them
... would like to get a pool of reviewers
... and when tests come in, we get people from the pool to
review the tests.
... and this is done on github
<Ken> +Q
Ken: Would it be helpful for me to reach out to testing people in orgs we work with in financial services industry?
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to comment
IJ: Thank you for the offer, Ken.
Mike5: As far as getting people
in as IEs for testing, that's do-able and I would support
that.
... we'd need to discussing within the staff but I support the
idea.
... we have had some very successful experiences with hiring
external resources to work on testing
... e.g., on Javascript
... we've had other experiences with mixed results.
... one indicator I think of future success is how familiar
testers are with JavaScript.
... our test harness is in JavaScript
... best would be to align with orgs that have experience with
testing
<Ken> Perfect.
<Ken> Concur
IJ: Let's write down requirements, let Ken use them to do outreach, and see who is interested
Ken: +1
<scribe> ACTION: Mike5 to write down requirements /skills for potential testers that would help ensure success and share with the WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/22-wpwg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Write down requirements /skills for potential testers that would help ensure success and share with the wg [on Michael[tm] Smith - due 2017-06-29].
AdrianHB: What takeaways for people on the call?
Mike5: Please volunteer to review.
(Ian volunteers; have not done this before but am interested in getting that level of experience)
Mike5: The second takeaway is -
if you have testing experience and you have some skill in
JavaScript, we can make it easy for you to write tests and get
them submitted
... remember the goal is to enable you to build on solid
foundations for your users
AdrianHB: I also want to say that we should do this so that we don't get to the end of the process and are unable to proceed to REC
(IJ asks any other volunteers to say "I volunteer" on IRC)
adrianhb: It's often easier to review a spec if you have a goal. One goal could be to review the spec with a specific test in mind.
Status of pull request 536
https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/536
AdrianHB: Progress. My concern right now is that if the data is invalid, the entire payment request is rejected rather than the specific data
<Zakim> MikeSmith, you wanted to comment
MikeSmith: The comment from
Domenic (https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/536#discussion_r123521267)
... is that he doesn't understand what "discard" means
AdrianHB: Marcos' text says, as
you go through the loop, if data is invalid, you abandon the
whole algorithm.
... my suggestion is you reject that particular identifier.
Ian: +1
AdrianHB: Let's take to GitHub
IJ: What is the updated timetable for getting to CR?
<AdrianHB> ian: What is the updated estimate on going to CR from editors?
Roy: Don't have that information.
<AdrianHB> [No other editors on the call]
IJ: Please ask Editors for an estimated revised timeline
Roy: Will do
<scribe> ACTION: Roy to check with PR API editors to get a revised timeline to CR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/22-wpwg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-63 - Check with pr api editors to get a revised timeline to cr [on Roy McElmurry - due 2017-06-29].
Ian: Please register
IJ: We are moving to auto-publication
https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-handler/
https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/issues
<AdrianHB> ian: good implementation experience coming in from Samsung and Google
https://github.com/w3c/payment-handler/pull/170
<AdrianHB> ... lots of activity on the TF
<AdrianHB> ... want to darw particular attention to this proposal from rouslan
<AdrianHB> ... revisiting idea of a canMakePayment event and still address privacy concerns
<AdrianHB> ... also added abort event to notify app if browser has requested abort (possibly on behalf of website)
<AdrianHB> ... won't be merged into spec until some impl experience has been gathered
<AdrianHB> ... good progress also on window opening and discussion around default payment instrument
<AdrianHB> ... possibly bring payment handler discussion into main meeting soon (as implementations roll out)
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments-methods-tokenization/wiki/gateway_params
<AdrianHB> ian: great conversations in tokenization TF too
<AdrianHB> ... updated gateway token spec (looking like payment method spec)
<AdrianHB> ... waiting on some feedback from Amex on network tokenization and whether both can be handled in a single payment method
<AdrianHB> ... will bring back to group after
See also => http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-methods-credit-transfer-direct-debit/
:)
<AdrianHB> ian: also progressing well...
6 July
(No objections)