12:03:20 RRSAgent has joined #wot-script 12:03:25 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-irc 12:03:26 meeting: WoT Scripting API 12:03:30 cris_ has joined #wot-script 12:03:47 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Jan_Romann 12:04:05 JKRhb has joined #wot-script 12:06:03 scribenick: JKRhb 12:06:04 present+ Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:07:22 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Scripting_API_WebConf#January_29%2C_2024 12:07:22 topic: Minutes Review 12:07:35 ca: We went through a lot of issues 12:07:35 -> https://www.w3.org/2024/01/22-wot-script-minutes.html Jan-22 12:07:42 ... and discussed a lot of them 12:07:58 ... oh, there is a typo in my name, Kaz 12:08:22 ... briefly discussed scheduling, but for now we will keep the weekly schedule 12:08:30 ... there is also a typo in Zoltan's name 12:08:46 ... other than that, I don't see any obvious issues 12:09:11 kaz: Names have been fixed, should be updated now 12:09:37 ca: There is one instance of "ZK" for Zoltan remaining 12:09:41 kaz: Also updated 12:09:55 ca: Alright, any objections to accepting these minutes? 12:10:07 ... hearing none, the minutes are accepted 12:10:10 topic: Agenda 12:10:30 ca: I put PR 489 here, although it is stalled at the moment 12:10:47 ... requires probably one day to deal with thoroughly 12:10:58 ... will carry it over as a reminder 12:11:05 zkis has joined #wot-script 12:11:18 i|put PR|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/489 PR 489 - Better types for Scripting API| 12:11:21 ... there are a number of new issues opened which I would like to include in today's agenda 12:11:31 s|-> https://www.w3.org/2024/01/22-wot-script-minutes.html Jan-22|| 12:11:31 ... please speak up if you have any other points 12:11:38 i|We went|-> https://www.w3.org/2024/01/22-wot-script-minutes.html Jan-22| 12:11:43 rrsagent, make log pubic 12:11:52 rrsagent, make log public 12:11:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:11:59 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:12:06 ... issues have been raised by two new people, maybe new users of the scripting API 12:12:08 ... one issue is by Fady 12:12:34 ... (adds the new issues to the Agenda in the Wiki) 12:13:01 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:13:03 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:13:16 chair: Cristiano 12:13:50 ... (also adds one issue by Jan and one regarding typescript definitions to the Wiki) 12:13:59 s/topic: Agenda/topic: PRs/ 12:14:27 ca: Will add your issue to the bottom, as Zoltan is currently not in the call 12:15:03 jr: He just wrote that he is having technical difficulties, unfortunately 12:15:05 topic: Issues 12:15:11 subtopic: Issue 540 12:15:14 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/540 12:15:29 ca: This is a pretty easy issue 12:15:34 i/there are a number/topic: Issues/ 12:15:35 ... I already labeled it as a bug 12:15:43 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:15:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:15:58 ... as Fady mentions that we have a mistake in the subscribeEvent algorithm 12:16:05 s/topic: Issues// 12:16:38 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/540|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/540 Issue 540 - A mistake in subscribeEvent logic| 12:16:41 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:16:42 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:16:48 ... he wrote that the check for the presence of an eventName in the activeSubscriptions is currently reversed, for me it makes sense to fix this 12:17:04 ... he also warned us that a similar issue exists in the observeProperty algorithm 12:17:16 ... maybe we can decide in this call on fixing this 12:17:36 ... I am also seeing a WebIDL syntax error here 12:18:05 ... more impotantly, the logic in the case of observeProperty is the other way around and we should decide one the way to handle this 12:18:43 jr: Seems like there is an equals sign missing in the square brackets 12:19:24 ca: The other terms are correct, apparently 12:19:25 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/#the-subscribeevent-method 8.11 The subscribeEvent() method 12:19:32 ... (adds a comment to the issue) 12:19:41 ... does anyway want to volunteer to fix this 12:19:51 s/anyway/anyone/ 12:19:53 q+ 12:19:55 present+ 12:19:57 ... (assigns himself) 12:20:27 kaz: In that case, we not only need to fix subscribeEvent but also observeProperty, right? 12:20:27 ack k 12:20:36 ca: Exactly, but with different fixes 12:20:44 -> https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/releases/note2/index.html#the-observeproperty-method 8.9 12:20:52 ... subscribeEvent needs a logic fix, observeProperty needs a syntax fix 12:21:00 s|8.9|8.9 The observeProperty() method| 12:21:02 subtopic: Issue 539 12:21:08 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/539 12:21:09 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:21:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:21:52 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/539|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/539 Issue 539 - ObserveProperty with uri vars| 12:21:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:21:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:22:04 jr: I categorize the issue, the point is that if you are using URI Variables the key should be same or not? 12:22:11 ... not sure what is about 12:22:18 present+ Zoltan_Kis 12:22:22 present- zkis 12:22:24 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:22:26 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:23:25 jr: Seems to be also related to issue 540 12:25:05 ca: Yeah, other than that it is referring to URI variables. If you want to subscribe to an event, you can subscribe to a different kind of event via URI variables, but only one subscription can be stored 12:25:33 ... we can not subscribe again with different URI variables 12:25:51 jr: Yeah, you would need to cancel the first subscription first 12:26:05 ca: Is this a use case? And how can we solve this? 12:26:27 ... (starts adding a comment to the issue) 12:26:32 dape has joined #wot-script 12:26:50 present+ Daniel_Peintner 12:26:54 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:26:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:27:02 ... I would say, you cannot subscribe concurrently and have two active subscriptions to the same event 12:28:07 ... one workaround would be to consume the TD twice 12:28:24 ... but this might create other issues with open connections 12:28:55 ... so you have two options, the other being unsubscibing and then subscribing again 12:29:51 ... this could even be a use case with a short user story 12:30:27 ... "as a user, I want to subscribe to the same event twice with different URI variables" 12:31:24 q+ 12:31:31 ... should we label this as a use case? 12:31:50 jr: I would say it has a use case, but it does not have the highest priority. You could also simply create another event in the TD 12:32:36 ca: Will label it as low priority, also considering that URI variables might change in TD 2.0, probably also relates to the DataSchemaMapping topic 12:33:36 zk: Consuming the TD multiple times is not an ideal solution, as we are having URI variables for a purpose like that 12:34:20 ... what does the TD spec say about that? What if you make a subscription with or without URI variables? 12:34:31 ca: I think the TD spec does not say much about it 12:34:44 zk: Then it seems underspecified 12:35:13 ... we should probably support multiple subscriptions, should file a bug for our own specification 12:35:57 ca: Check for active subscriptions should include the URI variables 12:36:39 ... can also test it out in node-wot and then provide a more thorough fix to the specification 12:37:12 ... (finished the comment in the issue) 12:37:28 dp: You could also add the "Bug" label to the issue 12:37:59 jr: Should we also add a "use case" label? 12:38:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:38:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:38:12 ca: Yeah (adds the two labels) 12:38:14 subtopic: Issue 537 12:38:18 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/537 12:38:38 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/537|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/537 Issue 537 - Proposal: use TD default values| 12:38:39 ca: I think here the user is trying to create a feature request for the Scripting API 12:38:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:38:41 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:38:51 ... it is about supporting "default" values 12:39:15 ... the question is whether we can that into account, for example for ExposedThing 12:40:02 dp: He also mentions that you would not need to create a handler in the case a default value is present 12:40:18 s/He also mentions/They also mention/ 12:41:16 q? 12:41:18 ack dape 12:41:20 zk: I don't think this is really serious, it is a possible use case, but I would like to see more developer feedback on this, adding a simple handler that returns 5, for example, is not that much work 12:41:37 ca: Could be more relevant for the Consumer side 12:43:34 ... if you know that a payload will always return 5, you could invoke an action without passing a payload 12:44:12 dp: Also, you would always need a JSON Schema library and there might be implementations that don't want to add this dependency 12:44:28 ca: For example, ajv does this automatically 12:44:44 q? 12:44:46 ... at least Ege told me that there is a feature to add default values automatically 12:44:55 ... but this should not be required 12:45:07 ... (adds a summary comment to the issue) 12:45:16 subtopic: Issue 536 12:45:24 ca: This issue has popped up 12:45:26 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/536 12:45:37 ... maybe there were some changes in the TD JSON Schema? 12:46:03 dp: Usually I resolve this kind of issue asynchronously 12:46:38 ... in this case, it seems to be only whitespace changes due to the formatting changes in the TD repo 12:46:47 ... so we could simply skip it 12:46:57 ca: I also think we should skip it 12:47:20 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/536|| 12:47:38 dp: The version number also has not changed, so publishing a new one would work directly 12:47:38 i|This issue has|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/536 Publish thing-description TypeScript package| 12:47:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:47:42 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:47:55 ca: Is everyone okay with just closing it? 12:47:59 jr: Sounds resonable 12:48:22 ca: I will ping Ege for feedback, then next time we could close it 12:48:34 topic: Issue 535 12:48:45 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/535 12:49:03 ca: Zoltan has already left, unfortunately, so we should postpone it 12:49:37 ... maybe you can also answer to Zoltan's comments in the meantime, Jan? 12:49:41 jr: Will do 12:49:51 subtopic: Issue 392 12:50:00 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/392 12:50:13 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/535|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/535 Issue 535 - Dedicated methods for DNS-SD, CoRE Link-Format discovery, and other approaches?| 12:50:21 ca: I was wondering if we can close this one as an outdated issue as we are reworking our handling of issues in the Working Group more generally 12:50:36 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/392|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/392 Issue 392 - Use-case due diligence| 12:50:49 dp: I second that, I also commented twice there that the discussion got stalled 12:51:04 ... is anyone else using the CSV file anyway? 12:51:12 q^ 12:51:15 q? 12:51:20 q+ 12:51:24 ca: I agree, the file is kind of outdated anyway due to the new use case work 12:51:40 s/q^// 12:51:51 kaz: Given the current situation, meaning that the issue was created three years ago, we can close it, I agree 12:52:14 ... we should collaborate with the Use Case TF in the current period on this topic more closely 12:52:37 ca: (adds a summary comment to the issue and closes the issue) 12:52:48 s/closes the issue/closes it/ 12:52:56 subtopic: Issue 206 12:53:01 s/three years/two years/ 12:53:02 https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/206 12:53:11 ca: We discussed this last time but I am not sure why we did not close it 12:53:13 s/we should/However, we should/ 12:53:27 dp: I think because of Jan's comment, right? 12:53:43 ca: Let's double-check with the minutes from last time 12:53:46 s|https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/206|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/206 Issue 206 - Clarify Discovery API scope| 12:53:47 ... (checks the minutes) 12:53:54 ... ah, it was a homework for Zoltan 12:53:58 ... we can ping him 12:54:40 ... (adds a comment to the issue, pinging Zoltan, and adds the label "Wait for feedback") 12:54:51 s/"Wait/"Waiting/ 12:55:17 subtopic: Label "wait for TD" 12:55:32 ca: I reviewed most of the issues we currently have 12:55:51 ... so here is the list of issues I wanted to discuss with the TD Taskforce 12:55:55 ... (shows the list) 12:56:15 ... are you fine with this list or do have any proposals for how we should proceed with this activity? 12:56:44 dp: I think like you said, we should bring these issues to the use case taskforce and see how it fits in with their work 12:56:45 q+ 12:56:49 ack k 12:56:55 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:56:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 12:57:02 ca: I am also wondering whether we should first talk to the TD TF 12:57:36 ... maybe what is also missing is how high the priority for these issues is for us, also in relation to the priority the TD TF has for them 12:58:00 ... maybe we can just filter out the issues with a high priority for us 12:58:20 ... (adjusts the filter in the issue overview) 12:58:43 ... should we ask for a slot in the TD call with this list? 12:59:02 dp: Maybe we can create an issue in their repository and link this list 12:59:40 ca: Most of these are also not new use cases but rather questions of how to deal with them in practice 12:59:47 dp: More like clarifications 12:59:51 ca: Or fixes 13:00:34 ... maybe in the next call, we can go through the issues together and then link corresponding issues 13:00:54 dp: Just a comment regarding the use case call: Who is joining the call? 13:00:56 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:00:57 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 13:01:33 ca: I am joining 13:01:33 q+ 13:01:33 ... I am trying to join most of them 13:01:33 ack d 13:01:33 ack dape 13:01:49 kaz: Technically, Mizushima-San is the leader of the Use Case TF, so we can talk to him regarding use case questions as well 13:02:03 jr: I am also joining the Use Case call 13:02:07 topic: AOB 13:02:13 ca: Any other topics? 13:02:20 ... hearing none, then we can adjourn 13:02:26 [adjourned] 13:02:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:02:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/01/29-wot-script-minutes.html kaz 14:23:21 zkis has joined #wot-script 15:06:50 Zakim has left #wot-script