IRC log of wot-script on 2023-11-06
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 12:06:54 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #wot-script
- 12:06:58 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/11/06-wot-script-irc
- 12:07:00 [kaz]
- meeting: WoT Scripting API
- 12:07:27 [JKRhb]
- scribenick: JKRhb
- 12:07:28 [kaz]
- present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Daniel_Peintner, Jan_Romann, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis
- 12:07:41 [JKRhb]
- topic: Minutes Review
- 12:07:48 [dape]
- -> https://www.w3.org/2023/10/23-wot-script-minutes.html
- 12:07:52 [JKRhb]
- dp: I quickly checked the minutes
- 12:07:59 [JKRhb]
- ... we had a very short call last time
- 12:08:13 [JKRhb]
- ... we mostly discussed integrating PRs that were made for the publication branch
- 12:08:25 [JKRhb]
- ... I looked into it and prepared a PR for that
- 12:08:32 [kaz]
- q+
- 12:08:35 [JKRhb]
- ... other than that, the minutes look to me
- 12:08:50 [JKRhb]
- ... if there are no objections, then I would ask Kaz to publish
- 12:09:07 [JKRhb]
- kaz: The call was very short indeed and we did not approve the minutes of the meeting before
- 12:09:12 [kaz]
- ack k
- 12:09:15 [JKRhb]
- ... so we need to do that as well
- 12:09:23 [kaz]
- s/html/html Oct-23/
- 12:09:37 [kaz]
- -> https://www.w3.org/2023/10/02-wot-script-minutes.html Oct-
- 12:09:41 [JKRhb]
- dp: (adds the minutes from Obtober 2nd to the Wiki)
- 12:09:43 [kaz]
- s/Oct-/Oct-2/
- 12:09:58 [JKRhb]
- ... (shows the minutes from that meeting)
- 12:10:13 [JKRhb]
- ... I think they are fine as well, so we can make both minutes public
- 12:10:23 [kaz]
- chair: Daniel
- 12:10:27 [JKRhb]
- Minutes are approved
- 12:10:32 [JKRhb]
- topic: PRs
- 12:10:34 [kaz]
- rrsagent, make log public
- 12:10:38 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:10:39 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/06-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
- 12:10:53 [JKRhb]
- dp: I would skip the TS-related PRs, since Cristiano is not here
- 12:12:12 [JKRhb]
- ... and the first PR deals with the adjustment of WoT definitions which might require more discussion
- 12:12:29 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: PR 511
- 12:13:02 [kaz]
- regrets+ Cristiano
- 12:13:29 [dape]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/511
- 12:13:50 [JKRhb]
- dp: This is a very simple PR that came from other specs as well
- 12:14:02 [JKRhb]
- ... is regarding Zoltan's affiliation
- 12:14:19 [JKRhb]
- ... requested by Michael McCool, changes "Intel" to "Intel Corp."
- 12:14:34 [JKRhb]
- ... are you fine with the changes, Zoltan?
- 12:14:59 [JKRhb]
- zk: The changes are okay for me
- 12:15:12 [JKRhb]
- dp: Then I will merge
- 12:15:17 [JKRhb]
- PR is merged
- 12:15:26 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: PR 513
- 12:15:36 [JKRhb]
- dp: This is one is probably a bit more tricky
- 12:15:48 [JKRhb]
- ... aligns TypeScript definitions with discovery API
- 12:15:50 [dape]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/513
- 12:15:55 [JKRhb]
- ... changes look fine to me
- 12:16:03 [kaz]
- s|pull/511|pull/511 PR 511 - fix: "Intel" usage to "Intel Corp."|
- 12:16:36 [kaz]
- s/513/513 PR 513 - feat!(typescript): align TypeScript definitions with Discovery API/
- 12:18:17 [JKRhb]
- jr: PR simply aligns TS definitions with specification
- 12:18:38 [JKRhb]
- ... we had some discussion regarding constructors in interfaces
- 12:19:23 [JKRhb]
- dp: We should maybe postpone adding a constructor to the ThingDiscoveryProcess interface
- 12:19:38 [JKRhb]
- zk: We should resolve the constructor discussion first
- 12:19:59 [JKRhb]
- dp: Adding constructors to interfaces was a bit new to me
- 12:20:33 [JKRhb]
- zk: Constructors are nice for testing, but we should not add them if we don't have a strong use case
- 12:20:58 [JKRhb]
- ... in general, we should use factories instead
- 12:21:12 [JKRhb]
- ... we should investigate why we decided to add constructors in the first place
- 12:22:00 [JKRhb]
- ... we already have factories, which is a simple enough approach
- 12:22:32 [JKRhb]
- dp: Then I would ask you to update the PR, Jan, and remove the constructor
- 12:22:49 [JKRhb]
- ... one thing we need to do is changing the version number of the TypeScript definitions
- 12:23:46 [JKRhb]
- zk: Just to clarify: If someone creates a new ConsumedThing via a constructor, an error should be thrown, we should add a test case for that
- 12:23:51 [kaz]
- kaz has joined #wot-script
- 12:24:05 [JKRhb]
- dp: I think in node-wot, we don't even have a constructor defined
- 12:25:32 [JKRhb]
- jr: I think we don't have it in the TS definitions, but in the spec for ExposedThing
- 12:25:54 [JKRhb]
- dp: A constructor is defined for ConsumedThing in the spec
- 12:26:03 [JKRhb]
- ... I think we have a consensus to remove it
- 12:26:43 [JKRhb]
- ... (adds a comment to PR 513 with the result of the discussion)
- 12:26:55 [JKRhb]
- zk: We also need to adjust the prose as well
- 12:27:21 [JKRhb]
- dp: This is something we should do in a separate PR
- 12:27:55 [JKRhb]
- ... the only thing we should do is adjusting the ThingDiscoveryProcess and bumping the version
- 12:28:08 [JKRhb]
- ... will review again later and approve once changes are made
- 12:28:32 [JKRhb]
- zk: We need an issue to summarize the points
- 12:29:06 [JKRhb]
- dp: There was an oversight of us not adjusting the TypeScript definitions to the prose
- 12:29:25 [JKRhb]
- ... specification was correct, only TypeScript definitions weren't correct
- 12:30:17 [JKRhb]
- zk: Is it possible to reference the PR where the changes to the specification were made?
- 12:30:27 [JKRhb]
- dp: That is a good point
- 12:30:58 [JKRhb]
- ... there is no reference to the PR yet, the description should be updated
- 12:31:20 [JKRhb]
- jr: Will do
- 12:31:55 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: PR 515
- 12:32:06 [JKRhb]
- dp: Related to the PR before
- 12:32:21 [JKRhb]
- ... similar change to the constructor
- 12:33:25 [JKRhb]
- jr: This is actually obsolete after the discussion, 517 has been opened as an alternative
- 12:33:41 [JKRhb]
- dp: (Adds a comment and closes 515 in favor of 517)
- 12:33:46 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: PR 517
- 12:34:04 [JKRhb]
- dp: This PR now only adjusts the specification text
- 12:34:28 [JKRhb]
- ... also still need to review it, adjusts prose and WebIDL
- 12:34:42 [JKRhb]
- zk: "Construct" is replaced with "create"
- 12:34:52 [JKRhb]
- ... prose is mostly kept the same
- 12:35:02 [JKRhb]
- ... I think this looks pretty good now
- 12:35:18 [JKRhb]
- dp: Do you want to make any further reviews?
- 12:35:41 [JKRhb]
- zk: We should all have another look
- 12:35:49 [JKRhb]
- ... then we can probably decide next week
- 12:35:52 [kaz]
- i|Related to the PR before|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/515 PR 515 - feat(typescript): add constructor to ConsumedThing interface|
- 12:35:59 [JKRhb]
- ... let's keep it open for now then
- 12:36:14 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: PR 514
- 12:36:21 [kaz]
- i|This PR now only ad|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/517 PR 517 - feat!: remove constructor from ConsumedThing interface|
- 12:36:22 [dape]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/514
- 12:36:25 [JKRhb]
- dp: This is a very simple PR, I guess
- 12:36:47 [JKRhb]
- ... in issue 497, we noticed that Kaz made some changes to the publication documents
- 12:36:56 [kaz]
- s/514/514 PR 514 - refactor: Update working draft with changes done for note2 publication/
- 12:37:01 [JKRhb]
- ... I essentially took out of them was is necessary to adjust in general
- 12:37:29 [JKRhb]
- ... there was one PR that added the "defer" attribute to the script tag loading ReSpec
- 12:37:40 [JKRhb]
- ... other than that, the GitHub API URL has changed
- 12:38:03 [JKRhb]
- ... so mostly aligns with published documents
- 12:38:15 [JKRhb]
- ... Cristiano approved it
- 12:38:23 [JKRhb]
- zk: You can just merge it
- 12:38:36 [JKRhb]
- dp: (adds a comment and merges the PR)
- 12:38:54 [JKRhb]
- Merged, issue 497 is automatically closed by the PR
- 12:39:00 [JKRhb]
- topic: Issues
- 12:39:11 [JKRhb]
- dp: I haven't selected dedicated issues yet
- 12:39:24 [JKRhb]
- ... is there anything you would like to discuss?
- 12:39:36 [JKRhb]
- I haven't had time to look and group them
- 12:39:53 [JKRhb]
- s/I haven't had time to look and group them/... I haven't had time to look and group them/
- 12:40:13 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: Issue 512
- 12:40:39 [JKRhb]
- dp: There is this issue that deals with the script by Kaz that removes duplicated IDs
- 12:40:52 [JKRhb]
- ... resolves the issue with the conformance classes
- 12:41:14 [JKRhb]
- ... from my point of view, keeping the conformance classes makes sense from a developer's perspective
- 12:41:21 [JKRhb]
- ... do you have any opinions on that?
- 12:41:29 [kaz]
- i|There is this|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/512 Issue 512 - Add perl script (for fixing duplicate IDs) to master/release folder|
- 12:41:32 [JKRhb]
- zk: I am also in favor of keeping the conformance classes
- 12:41:48 [JKRhb]
- dp: That is good to hear, then we could simply close the PR
- 12:42:19 [kaz]
- q+
- 12:42:23 [JKRhb]
- zk: This was also something mentioned by McCool, having conformance classes gets rid of the need for multiple documents
- 12:43:08 [kaz]
- ck k
- 12:43:13 [kaz]
- s/ck k/
- 12:43:15 [kaz]
- ack k
- 12:43:16 [JKRhb]
- kaz: I am okay with adding the script in general, but we should have an updated README.md that details how to fix the ReSpec issues in general
- 12:43:22 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:43:23 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/06-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
- 12:44:09 [JKRhb]
- dp: That's correct, if we add the script, then we should document how to use it
- 12:44:22 [kaz]
- q+
- 12:44:33 [JKRhb]
- ... do you have time to create a simple PR to add a short documentation text how to use it?
- 12:44:58 [JKRhb]
- kaz: There is a Makefile that documents how to use it, maybe we can add a one-line description based on that Makefile
- 12:45:24 [JKRhb]
- dp: There were two PRs I've seen, one adds the script and one adds the Makefile
- 12:45:43 [kaz]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/blob/main/releases/note2/fix-id.pl Perl script
- 12:45:46 [kaz]
- -> @@@
- 12:45:50 [JKRhb]
- kaz: That can simply be copied to or linked from the README
- 12:46:16 [kaz]
- s|@@@|https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/blob/main/releases/note2/Makefile Makefile which shows how to use the script|
- 12:46:17 [JKRhb]
- dp: Do we want to put it in the "Releases" folder or the main README?
- 12:46:28 [kaz]
- q+
- 12:46:31 [JKRhb]
- ... I think it is more related to Releases, but let me know what you want to see
- 12:46:44 [JKRhb]
- ... we are missing a README in the releases folder anyway
- 12:46:54 [JKRhb]
- ... so my suggestion is to add this README in there
- 12:46:58 [JKRhb]
- zk: But we have a README
- 12:47:32 [JKRhb]
- dp: There are only READMEs for specific releases, not in the general directory
- 12:47:46 [JKRhb]
- kaz: Would make sense to add a README under /releases
- 12:47:59 [JKRhb]
- ... that README should include instructions how to use the script
- 12:48:11 [JKRhb]
- ... and how to create the static HTML files
- 12:48:18 [kaz]
- -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/tree/main/releases wot-scripting-api/releases
- 12:48:53 [JKRhb]
- ... we can use the template from the TD repo and the script
- 12:48:58 [JKRhb]
- dp: I will do that
- 12:49:10 [JKRhb]
- ... is that okay for everyone?
- 12:49:15 [JKRhb]
- zk: It's okay
- 12:49:20 [kaz]
- i|I will|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/blob/main/publication/README.md wot-thing-description/publication/README.md|
- 12:49:27 [JKRhb]
- ... and have a README in every directory
- 12:50:00 [kaz]
- s/template/README.md/
- 12:50:15 [JKRhb]
- dp: Is it then okay to close the discussion on conformance classes? And the corresponding PR?
- 12:50:18 [JKRhb]
- zk: Yes
- 12:50:29 [kaz]
- s/and the script/as a template, and can add how to use this Perl script to that./
- 12:50:38 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:50:39 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/06-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
- 12:51:19 [JKRhb]
- dp: (closes PR 502 and issue 506, adds a comment to PR 502 with a summary)
- 12:52:17 [JKRhb]
- subtopic: Issue 516
- 12:52:39 [kaz]
- i|Yes|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/502 PR 502 - refactor: move WoT definitions up in a single place|
- 12:52:42 [JKRhb]
- This issue can also closed, since we concluded in the discussion that we don't use constructors, neither in WebIDL nor in TypeScript
- 12:53:10 [kaz]
- i|Yes|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/506 Issue 506 - Re-evaluate the conformance classes|
- 12:53:21 [JKRhb]
- ... since they are synchronous, while factories are asynchronous and can be used instead
- 12:53:28 [kaz]
- s/This issue/dp: This issue/
- 12:53:30 [JKRhb]
- ... is it fine for everyone to close this issue?
- 12:53:52 [kaz]
- i|This issue|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/516 Issue 516 - Add a constructor to both the WebIDL and TypeScript definitions of the ExposedThing interface|
- 12:53:55 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:53:57 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/06-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
- 12:54:33 [JKRhb]
- jr: Closing it is fine by me
- 12:54:33 [JKRhb]
- dp: (Closes the issue)
- 12:54:40 [JKRhb]
- topic: AOB
- 12:54:54 [JKRhb]
- dp: I would like to close early, any other business?
- 12:55:01 [JKRhb]
- There is no other business
- 12:55:12 [JKRhb]
- [adjourned]
- 12:55:23 [kaz]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 12:55:24 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/06-wot-script-minutes.html kaz
- 13:55:38 [kaz]
- kaz has joined #wot-script
- 14:27:37 [kaz]
- kaz has joined #wot-script
- 14:48:38 [kaz]
- kaz has joined #wot-script
- 14:50:52 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #wot-script
- 15:01:38 [kaz]
- kaz has joined #wot-script
- 16:01:30 [kaz]
- kaz has joined #wot-script
- 17:14:43 [kaz]
- kaz has joined #wot-script
- 17:35:42 [kaz]
- kaz has joined #wot-script
- 19:54:55 [zkis_]
- zkis_ has joined #wot-script