06:27:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #socialweb-test-suite
06:27:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-socialweb-test-suite-irc
06:27:18 <Ian> RRSAgent, do not leave
06:27:18 <Ian> RRSAgent, make logs public
06:27:19 <Ian> Meeting: SocialWeb Test suite discussion
06:27:19 <Ian> Chair: Dmitri Zagidulin, nightpool, James Gallagher
06:27:19 <Ian> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/tpac2023-breakouts/issues/36
06:27:21 <Ian> clear agenda
06:27:23 <Ian> agenda+ Pick a scribe
06:27:25 <Ian> agenda+ Reminders: code of conduct, health policies, recorded session policy
06:27:27 <Ian> agenda+ Goal of this session
06:27:29 <Ian> agenda+ Discussion
06:27:31 <Ian> agenda+ Next steps / where discussion continues
06:27:41 <Ian> Ian has left #socialweb-test-suite
07:03:18 <mro> mro has joined #socialweb-test-suite
07:05:34 <Ian> Ian has joined #socialweb-test-suite
07:05:41 <Ian> Ian has left #socialweb-test-suite
07:08:48 <Ian> Ian has joined #socialweb-test-suite
07:08:51 <Ian> Ian has left #socialweb-test-suite
10:04:14 <mro> mro has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:07:00 <mro> Hi allo, are you already preparing? In 10 minutes the meeting is supposed to start, right? https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/919c2a7d-e925-4249-8a29-09001c15b48a/
10:13:37 <tantek> tantek has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:14:06 <mro> Hi tantek, is there a way to see the presented material other than zoom?
10:15:10 <eprodrom> eprodrom has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:15:13 <sandro_> sandro_ has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:15:18 <eprodrom> Hello!
10:15:55 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:16:27 <btsavage> btsavage has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:16:31 <btsavage> present+
10:16:40 <michielbdejong_> michielbdejong_ has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:16:43 <michielbdejong_> hi
10:16:53 <pchampin> present+
10:16:58 <pfefferle> pfefferle has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:17:14 <michielbdejong_> present+
10:17:37 <eprodrom> present+
10:17:55 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:17:57 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
10:17:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-socialweb-test-suite-minutes.html pchampin
10:18:07 <dmitriz> present+
10:18:39 <pchampin> scribe: michielbdejong_
10:18:47 <eprodrom> mro: are you here?
10:18:54 <mro> yes
10:19:05 <eprodrom> :thumbsup:
10:19:09 <michielbdejong_> Dimitri: welcome everyone to the test suite special topic breakout session
10:19:15 <mro> Hi eprodrom
10:19:17 <michielbdejong_> we wanted to continue our series of calles
10:19:29 <michielbdejong_> we started a few weeks ago, where we discussed the general challenges
10:19:43 <michielbdejong_> in developing a test suite for the fediverse, specifically activity pub
10:19:50 <michielbdejong_> discussing various test suite efforts
10:20:00 <michielbdejong_> demos of in-progress test suites and tools
10:20:06 <michielbdejong_> today let's continue with a similar pattern
10:20:06 <pfefferle> present+
10:20:10 <michielbdejong_> give updates on tests in progress
10:20:43 <michielbdejong_> any sort of demos
10:20:43 <michielbdejong_> and if there's time, there will be talk about starting test suites on other protocols aside from activitypub
10:22:01 <michielbdejong_> and schedule the next test suite call
10:22:01 <eprodrom> q+
10:22:01 <michielbdejong_> any questions already?
10:22:01 <eprodrom> ack eprodrom
10:22:01 <michielbdejong_> Evan: yes, i'll do the queueing thing and add myself
10:22:01 <sandro> sandro has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:22:01 <michielbdejong_> I thiknk our previous discussion was just about the AP federation protocol between implementations
10:22:01 <sandro> present+
10:22:01 <mro> yes, one very general one: what are the concrete goals and audiences for the test suites discussed?
10:22:01 <michielbdejong_> i think we have two other important specifications that we may want to include test suites for
10:22:01 <michielbdejong_> parsign and producing
10:22:01 <michielbdejong_> and AP api (client - server)
10:22:44 <michielbdejong_> s/parsign/parsing
10:22:44 <dmitriz> https://github.com/swicg/meetings/tree/main/2023-08-11
10:22:44 <michielbdejong_> Dimitri: and here's the link to the previous meeting
10:22:44 <michielbdejong_> s/Dimitri/Dmitri
10:23:00 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: that's a great topic to begin with
10:23:23 <michielbdejong_> focus on the AP test suite. specifically the aim is withasmuch hands-on command-line or human participation as is required
10:23:33 <michielbdejong_> but the general goal is to automate the process as much as possible
10:23:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-socialweb-test-suite-minutes.html sandro
10:24:50 <michielbdejong_> to be able to point the test suite to one or two live instances
10:24:50 <tantek> present+
10:24:50 <michielbdejong_> and check all the musts and the must-nots and should-nots from the AP spec
10:24:50 <michielbdejong_> to that end, several projects started on listing the requirements in a machine readable format
10:24:50 <michielbdejong_> and publishing those to a git repo
10:24:50 <michielbdejong_> on top of which, classical unit tests in javascript or python or go can be guilt
10:24:50 <michielbdejong_> s/guilt/built
10:25:26 <dmitriz> https://socialweb.coop/activitypub/behaviors/
10:25:35 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: so one such repo of behaviours was done by Ben
10:25:40 <eprodrom> Cool domain!
10:25:44 <mro> Are the tests supposed to be run by a independant 3rd party or by each individual self-hosted?
10:26:26 <tantek> q?
10:26:26 <michielbdejong_> That link is a rendered list of those behaviours, but there will be a git repo for the raw objects as well
10:27:00 <eprodrom> q+
10:27:00 <tantek> q+ to suggest ActivityPub S2S equivalent of https://webmention.rocks/
10:27:00 <michielbdejong_> Another one was done by ...
10:27:00 <michielbdejong_> Evan: before we move on, i would like to ask about the behaviours implementation
10:27:01 <michielbdejong_> my main question is, is this system complete?
10:27:17 <michielbdejong_> is there additional work that needs to be done on the socialweb.... behaviours list
10:27:39 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: next step is the shapes, we welcome help on that front
10:27:47 <michielbdejong_> Must is complete, should should be added
10:27:52 <michielbdejong_> Evan: are there mechanisms for this?
10:27:55 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: yes
10:28:33 <michielbdejong_> I'll show you some of the ..
10:28:33 <michielbdejong_> writing the actual unit tests in javascript
10:28:36 <michielbdejong_> we decided to go with the native test runner
10:28:43 <michielbdejong_> we're using json objects to wrap the test suite
10:28:47 <michielbdejong_> here's an example
10:29:01 <dmitriz> https://codeberg.org/socialweb.coop/socialweb.coop/src/branch/main/activitypub/testing/src/actor.test.mjs
10:29:21 <mro> 404
10:29:28 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: those are nodejs test runners that wrap some of the behaviours
10:29:43 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: ah, it was moved, one moment
10:30:27 <eprodrom> q+
10:31:24 <dmitriz> sorry, this is the public list of behaviors: https://codeberg.org/socialweb.coop/activitypub-behaviors/src/branch/main/behaviors
10:31:24 <michielbdejong_> Evan: this on codeberg will be roughly the structure that you're talking about
10:31:24 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: yes, that's the idea
10:31:29 <michielbdejong_> This is the open list of required behaviours. the readme describes the format
10:31:42 <mro> I see yaml.
10:31:48 <michielbdejong_> in terms of an example of it being used by the test suite ...
10:31:57 <michielbdejong_> that ought to provide a starting point
10:31:59 <btsavage> q+
10:32:01 <dmitriz> q?
10:32:05 <eprodrom> ack eprodrom
10:33:00 <tantek> ack btsavage
10:33:00 <michielbdejong_> Ben from Meta: I'm not how to use it
10:33:00 <mro> I guess I need ssl + subdomain to run - is that described somewhere?
10:34:03 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: we use the yaml files as a source code from which we can generate JSON objects, JSON schema,
10:34:03 <michielbdejong_> graph insert statements, JSON-LD
10:34:03 <eprodrom> q+
10:34:03 <michielbdejong_> It's a general purpose syntax
10:34:03 <michielbdejong_> but for the test suite we compile the yaml into JSON objects
10:34:03 <michielbdejong_> and just use the attributes like described in the ...
10:34:03 <mro> is the process documented?
10:34:03 <michielbdejong_> Ben: i'm not sure how to use the yaml files to test my implementation
10:34:09 <michielbdejong_> Evan: let me illustrate my own interpretation
10:34:18 <michielbdejong_> this behaviours repo is not a test suitee
10:34:23 <michielbdejong_> s/suitee/suite
10:34:35 <michielbdejong_> it is a list of requirements that a test suite would use
10:34:45 <michielbdejong_> Tantek: it's a step towards creating a test suite
10:34:51 <mro> is there such a suite?
10:35:22 <dmitriz> q+
10:35:22 <michielbdejong_> Evan: correct. because it gives a unique id to each requirement, it lets us implement multiple test suites and still compare apples to apples
10:35:39 <michielbdejong_> and point to the correct way things should work according to the spec
10:35:44 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: yes, the idea is to 1)
10:35:58 <michielbdejong_> allow these objects to be used in the test naming and the output
10:36:03 <by_caballero> by_caballero has joined #socialweb-test-suite
10:36:08 <michielbdejong_> but the idea is to give these stable identifiers
10:36:21 <by_caballero> q+ to mention the dependency-encoding of the YAML files
10:36:21 <michielbdejong_> and publish the outcomes of various test suites
10:36:26 <michielbdejong_> so our next step in terms of that is
10:36:42 <michielbdejong_> giving each of these behaviours (...) so that testers and implementers can ...
10:36:50 <michielbdejong_> and this needs multiple inboxes
10:36:56 <michielbdejong_> s/(...)/inboxes
10:37:05 <michielbdejong_> make them their own topics or even AP actors
10:37:12 <tantek> q?
10:37:16 <btsavage> q+
10:37:50 <dmitriz> q-
10:37:50 <michielbdejong_> so that we can help coordinate with other testers
10:37:50 <eprodrom> q+
10:37:50 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: any things i've missed?
10:37:50 <michielbdejong_> Tantek: i want to first comment and then make a suggestion
10:37:52 <michielbdejong_> first of all thank you Dmitri, this list is key to developing a good test suite
10:38:05 <michielbdejong_> it's a common pattern, step 1, extract the testable assertions into a discrete list
10:38:15 <michielbdejong_> step 2 create an actual test runner
10:38:22 <tantek> ack tantek
10:38:22 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to suggest ActivityPub S2S equivalent of https://webmention.rocks/
10:38:29 <michielbdejong_> dmitriz: thanks!
10:38:58 <michielbdejong_> Tantek: the second point was the AP S2S equivalent of webmention.rocks
10:39:08 <michielbdejong_> ... some automated way to do such tests
10:39:38 <michielbdejong_> ... we've seen great success that once implementations pass the test suite, it should Just Work (tm) with other implementations
10:40:01 <michielbdejong_> ... speaking from a Mozilla perspective as well, also for mozilla.social we want to help this drive
10:40:07 <michielbdejong_> ... and help with the goal setting
10:40:18 <michielbdejong_> ... as a client of the test suite, let us know how we can help with that
10:40:32 <dmitriz> q?
10:40:41 <eprodrom> ack eprodrom
10:40:41 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: that link you mentioned webmention.rocks is exactly the kind of thing we're aiming for. that's our goal yes.
10:40:59 <michielbdejong_> Evan: i'm going to put you on the spot Dmitri, are you building one?
10:41:15 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: yes, we are, i thought it was public
10:41:25 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: actually i'm going to put Juan on the spot for that :)
10:41:55 <michielbdejong_> Juan: the two priorities are: test suite for CI, for feature branches etc, most urgent is supporting people who want to add support for something
10:42:03 <michielbdejong_> ... so they can test both trunk and their branch
10:42:17 <michielbdejong_> ... the other goal is buy-in from other people working on other test suites
10:42:37 <michielbdejong_> ... it's almost more important we get the attention from other people doing other form factors etc
10:43:19 <michielbdejong_> ... we hope for the end of the year to have semantic anchors linking with the Gherkin work and then we have the apples to apples comparison
10:43:48 <dmitriz> this is Helge's Gherkin behaviors repository, that he demo'd during the previous testing call: https://codeberg.org/helge/fediverse-features. And I believe Helge expressed interest in collaborating with the behaviors list from the spec
10:43:50 <michielbdejong_> ... how you compare architectures, p2p vs client-server, they will have different test runners, but they can agree on the requirements identifiers
10:44:00 <michielbdejong_> Evan: so i can run this and see the output?
10:44:08 <michielbdejong_> Juan: ideally, yes
10:44:21 <eprodrom> ack eprodrom
10:44:21 <michielbdejong_> Juan: and i was on the queue for another thing
10:44:37 <michielbdejong_> ... to say the yaml files include one counter-intuitive key-value pair
10:44:53 <michielbdejong_> ... they depend on each other; if you do this, then that should happen etc
10:45:05 <michielbdejong_> ... so if you're comparing a P2P that does only one of the code paths of a dependency
10:45:59 <michielbdejong_> ... then the idea was to have a little bit of structure to say "I'm ignoring this code path" - we were assuming preventing that people down the road would find fault with
10:46:11 <by_caballero> q?
10:46:16 <dmitriz> ack by_
10:46:16 <Zakim> by_caballero, you wanted to mention the dependency-encoding of the YAML files
10:46:29 <michielbdejong_> Ben: it occurs to me it would be extremely useful to have somthing like web platform tests
10:46:33 <tantek> q+
10:46:36 <tantek> ack btsavage
10:46:39 <michielbdejong_> ... is that something that we're trying to work towards?
10:46:55 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: yes and we welcome contributions but that's the goal
10:47:06 <michielbdejong_> Tantek: a manual integration report would be a good start
10:47:26 <michielbdejong_> ... I think it's OK to have a more modest goal of manual implementation reports
10:47:37 <tantek> https://webmention.net/implementation-reports/summary/
10:47:42 <michielbdejong_> ... for webmention there is this giant table
10:48:30 <michielbdejong_> ... light green is like barely passing, dark green is like 'oh yeah'
10:48:45 <michielbdejong_> ... not every implementaiton needs to do every feature
10:48:45 <btsavage> q?
10:48:51 <btsavage> q+
10:48:56 <michielbdejong_> ... yellow would be 'oh only one implementation did that'
10:49:25 <tantek> ack tantek
10:49:35 <tantek> https://webmention.net/implementation-reports/
10:49:44 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: is there a repo link?
10:49:47 <michielbdejong_> Tantek: yes
10:49:49 <tantek> https://github.com/w3c/webmention/tree/master/implementation-reports
10:50:09 <michielbdejong_> ... and if that structure works for you great, if you have a better structure, also great
10:50:19 <michielbdejong_> ... as much as we can help point out building blocks, I'm here for you
10:50:46 <michielbdejong_> Ben: I'm looking for advice, if i was today to write unit tests, to see if Threads passes this list of behaviours
10:51:03 <michielbdejong_> ... how have others done this in the past? have sample behaviours and then manually craft the unit tests?
10:51:03 <tantek> q?
10:51:12 <eprodrom> q+
10:51:16 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: great question, the answer is going to be all of the above
10:51:43 <michielbdejong_> ... even if it works between two or more servers, we're going to have to have example data, example create and subscribe messages, follow, unfollow, etc
10:51:57 <michielbdejong_> ... so you're absolutely right that the behaviours themselves are not enough
10:52:09 <michielbdejong_> Ben: yes, a repo of mock data would be super awesome
10:52:19 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: yes, and we would love to host that in the same repo
10:52:28 <pfefferle> q+
10:52:40 <michielbdejong_> ... where should we host it? on the social CG github space?
10:52:49 <tantek> ack btsavage
10:52:52 <michielbdejong_> ... it is git so it doesn't matter that much in the end
10:53:02 <tantek> ack eprodrom
10:53:07 <mro> pfefferle: you mean https://fedidevs.org/category/reference
10:53:24 <michielbdejong_> Evan: yeah, i think, i believe social web coop are the only ones so far implementing a test suite with this
10:53:39 <michielbdejong_> ... to answer Ben's question, the way people is do it now is just go through the spec
10:53:39 <pfefferle> yes
10:54:00 <michielbdejong_> ... ideally set up locally, but you can also set up test users on public instances and send messages from both sides
10:54:13 <btsavage> q+
10:54:28 <michielbdejong_> ... from your own implementation to Mastodon and back for instance. a very manual process. saying this a someone who gets test follows sometimes :)
10:54:54 <dmitriz> ack pfef
10:55:00 <michielbdejong_> Pfefferle: I just wanted to mention two projects that ... dev.org
10:55:08 <tantek> s/... dev.org/https://fedidevs.org/
10:55:16 <michielbdejong_> ... is kind of a project that collects sample data
10:55:21 <tantek> s|https:|https://fedidevs.org/
10:55:35 <michielbdejong_> ... how actors look, etc. you can at least use that
10:55:36 <by_caballero> https://fedidevs.org/reference/actor/ <-- mock data!
10:55:38 <tantek> https://fedidevs.org/
10:55:50 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
10:55:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-socialweb-test-suite-minutes.html pchampin
10:55:58 <michielbdejong_> ... and there is an nlnet project that tries to fund an AP test suite. Started by Johannes Ernst
10:56:15 <michielbdejong_> ... but maybe it is a good idea to fund some of the existing projects
10:56:18 <tantek> q?
10:56:18 <tantek> q+
10:56:20 <by_caballero> q+
10:56:22 <by_caballero> q-
10:56:28 <eprodrom> q+
10:56:30 <dmitriz> ack bsav
10:56:41 <michielbdejong_> Ben: so i'm wondering if it would be useful for implementers to set up some kind of test user affordance
10:56:52 <tantek> q+ to suggest a wiki page inside w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/ that at least keeps a flat list of current AP test suite sites/efforts (like we are collecting here)
10:56:53 <michielbdejong_> ... so you can ask please create test user so and so
10:56:54 <by_caballero> q+ to speak to redundancy and testing endpoint/testing mode
10:57:10 <michielbdejong_> ... without needing to send out any sort of test follows
10:57:22 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: one answer is "yes, let's!"
10:57:23 <pchampin> s|https://fedidevs.org///fedidevs.org|https://fedidevs.org/
10:57:34 <michielbdejong_> ... another is that it's creating a small parallel spec, where we're testing the test affordance
10:57:53 <michielbdejong_> ... but some instance have signup requirements and manual approval
10:57:59 <mro> I found some projects to refuse name a sample instance to create accounts at. Problem.
10:57:59 <tantek> ack btsavage
10:58:35 <michielbdejong_> Ben: then you have n^2 parents. but theoretically you could do just n tests if there would be an oracle perfect counterparty instance to test against
10:58:56 <tantek> s/parents/combinations of implementations
10:59:21 <michielbdejong_> Evan: i think the term of art is a "reference implementation" :)
10:59:26 <mro> I wrote things down in a "Federation Fairness" note with a more cultural approach.
10:59:40 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: that term has been incredibly contentious, its' such a political statement
10:59:41 <michielbdejong_> q+
10:59:42 <tantek> +1 dmitriz "reference implementation" is a very contentious phrase
11:00:06 <michielbdejong_> Tantek: the whole test models thing is very much about how stuff is bootstrapped
11:00:32 <michielbdejong_> ... Jeremy Keith (?) have this post where they say 'you can test your replies implementation against this post'
11:00:43 <michielbdejong_> ... even before there is a formal test suite
11:00:44 <dmitriz> haha yeah, so, it IS really useful! we'll just have to name it carefully "This thing over here is not a reference implementation we swear" <- has a nice ring to it.
11:01:04 <michielbdejong_> ... and people ask in chat channels people ask 'can someone send me a test follow?' it shows health of the community
11:01:23 <michielbdejong_> ... let's shy away from reference implementation. but a test suite server should also be open source
11:01:37 <dmitriz> q?
11:01:41 <michielbdejong_> .. rather than calling it a reference implementation
11:01:48 <dmitriz> ack tantek
11:01:48 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to suggest a wiki page inside w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/ that at least keeps a flat list of current AP test suite sites/efforts (like we are collecting here)
11:02:01 <dmitriz> "test suite server" <- that's a great name too, yeah!
11:02:13 <michielbdejong_> Tantek: there are a lot of different efforts for test suites, some are disconnected
11:02:33 <by_caballero> https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/wiki-collected-feedback-on-interop-testing-methods-living-docs-and-specs/3538
11:02:34 <michielbdejong_> ... and that's ok but i was going to suggest we add a page on the wiki, listing all test suites we know about
11:02:39 <by_caballero> ^ Here's the current linklist on socialhub
11:02:42 <dmitriz> q?
11:02:42 <michielbdejong_> ... for others who want to start yet another one
11:02:55 <michielbdejong_> ... and they can hopefully get in contact with each other
11:03:07 <michielbdejong_> ... it almost sounds like a coordination channel more than an interest challenge
11:03:28 <eprodrom> ack eprodrom
11:03:30 <michielbdejong_> ... and people working on different pieces and then putting them together.. I'm hinting and signing you up for that, Evan
11:03:36 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: yes
11:03:37 <eprodrom> https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/387
11:03:57 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: there is very exhaustive collation of testing efforst
11:04:03 <dmitriz> q?
11:04:09 <michielbdejong_> ... but this wiki page could be more summarised
11:04:33 <michielbdejong_> Tantek: yes, let's not divert existing conversation, but at least link to it to make itmore discoverable
11:04:43 <tantek> s/itmore/it more
11:04:49 <michielbdejong_> Evan: first, i created an issue to remind myself of the task of creating a testing page
11:04:58 <michielbdejong_> ... and also link to any testing implementations
11:05:36 <michielbdejong_> ... i think the question i wanted to ask is - we have a number of automated testing projects happening here. do we want to have an official "Social CG test suite" that is the single or primary way to put our efforts together
11:05:48 <michielbdejong_> ... do we have momentum to say the CG runs and maintains a test suite?
11:06:01 <btsavage> I support an official test suite
11:06:02 <michielbdejong_> ... and if so how do we get there
11:06:02 <tantek> +1 if we have a volunteer to lead it and coordinate
11:06:06 <by_caballero> q?
11:06:25 <michielbdejong_> Juan: I was on the queue for something similar
11:06:49 <michielbdejong_> ... after Johannes talked about his nlnet plan, i started a blogpost. it's not ready to share yet buty
11:06:53 <michielbdejong_> s/buty/but
11:07:03 <tantek> if/when we have a Social Web WG, we'd like want that as well, a Social WG test suite, which could live at a different domain (e.g. like webmention.rocks) but would still be an official effort from the group
11:07:34 <tantek> s/like want/likely want
11:07:34 <michielbdejong_> ... but i was thinking of a framework for working from the spec down to the apis, and Johannes was talking about the opposite direction
11:07:36 <michielbdejong_> ... one of the trickier thing for the social CG is like framing it in a non-zero way
11:08:01 <eprodrom> q+
11:08:05 <michielbdejong_> ... directing people based on if your primary goal is 100% interoperability, this might be the test suite for you
11:08:18 <michielbdejong_> ... there can be a layer inbetween like architectural decision making
11:09:03 <michielbdejong_> ... i keep chewing on that, that discussion about the python test runner that tests fediverse servers. it is not agnostic to client-server vs P2P
11:09:17 <michielbdejong_> ... you don't want to pick between your children
11:09:48 <michielbdejong_> ... all this to say that i'm thinking about that as a question to answer before we take a decision about the official CG test suite
11:09:54 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: i'll summarize
11:10:03 <by_caballero> q?
11:10:06 <by_caballero> q-
11:10:07 <dmitriz> ack by_
11:10:07 <pchampin> scribe+
11:10:26 <pchampin> michielbdejong_: about reference implementation / opensourcetest server;
11:10:46 <pchampin> ... we have a similar thing,  opencloud XXX
11:11:00 <pchampin> ... for all implementation we tell the server to do this or that
11:11:34 <pchampin> ... or the other way around, tell the OCM to go to the API to test
11:11:54 <dmitriz> +1 michiel, sounds like another vote for the usefulness of an "oracle" like test server
11:12:10 <dmitriz> q?
11:12:14 <dmitriz> ack michiel
11:12:19 <pchampin> ... the two directions are possible; use of stub that just *look* like they implement the protocol
11:12:29 <dmitriz> ack epr
11:12:31 <michielbdejong_> q-
11:12:33 <pchampin> ... that's a way to avoid a "reference implementation"
11:12:40 <pchampin> scribe-
11:12:46 <by_caballero> q?
11:12:47 <michielbdejong_> Evan: i lost my thought
11:13:03 <eprodrom> ack eprodrom
11:13:03 <michielbdejong_> ... oh, my main item was to say we don't maintain the Mastodon API :)
11:13:33 <michielbdejong_> ... i don't think it's necessary for us to test that but we do have AP API and ... S2S and activity streams
11:13:45 <michielbdejong_> ... yes my next question is about funding
11:14:02 <michielbdejong_> ... we had some discussion about two different systems where raised some cons
11:14:11 <michielbdejong_> ... does it make sense for a CG to sollicit funding from other sources
11:14:12 <btsavage> q+
11:14:24 <michielbdejong_> ... but is there a way we can get this test suite aligned
11:14:49 <michielbdejong_> opencollective.com/independent-solid-test-suite
11:15:04 <by_caballero> q+ to speak to funding
11:15:43 <pchampin> scribe+
11:15:43 <pchampin> michielbdejong_: for Solid, we did that in parallel, independant from the CG
11:15:47 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: that's a great topic to take to the mailing list
11:15:55 <michielbdejong_> Juan: could someone commit to coordinating?
11:16:22 <michielbdejong_> ... CC me on all the emails
11:16:48 <michielbdejong_> ... i offerd this informally in a previous call. i am already funded for this volunteer work if coordinating testing is an activity that we want to happen
11:17:04 <michielbdejong_> ... that money is specifically for coordinating volunteer efforts
11:17:15 <michielbdejong_> ... not product testing, it has to be anchored in the spec
11:17:23 <michielbdejong_> ... laser focused
11:17:38 <dmitriz> ack by_c
11:17:38 <Zakim> by_caballero, you wanted to speak to funding
11:17:42 <michielbdejong_> Ben: i am happy to try to scale up funding
11:17:50 <dmitriz> ack btsa
11:17:55 <michielbdejong_> ... to support test suite if the CG could provide us a recommended thing to fund
11:18:02 <michielbdejong_> ... that would be super useful
11:18:03 <tantek> q+
11:18:06 <eprodrom> q+
11:18:12 <michielbdejong_> Dmitri: thank you
11:18:32 <michielbdejong_> ... let's take this discussion back to async
11:21:24 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
11:21:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-socialweb-test-suite-minutes.html pchampin
11:22:11 <tantek> ack tantek
11:22:18 <tantek> ack eprodrom
11:23:22 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: create a Testing Task Force within the SocialCG with by_caballero as Task Force Lead
11:23:25 <dmitriz> +1 to that (Testing task force)
11:23:26 <tantek> +1
11:23:31 <eprodrom> +1
11:23:33 <pfefferle> +1
11:23:42 <by_caballero> +1 danke!
11:23:46 <michielbdejong_> +1
11:23:46 <mro> +1
11:23:50 <michielbdejong_> scribe-
11:24:07 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: create a Testing Task Force within the SocialCG with by_caballero as Task Force Lead
11:24:12 <pchampin> RRSAgent, make minutes
11:24:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/09/13-socialweb-test-suite-minutes.html pchampin
11:24:19 <michielbdejong_> And let's celebrate the 256th day of the year today :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmer%27s_Day
11:24:25 <mro> lol