Implementation Report Template #174
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
159f4fd to
15f5dc1
Compare
15f5dc1 to
bd97e86
Compare
|
I believe this now has all all the Client requirements backed by normative language |
b0165cf to
13a546a
Compare
|
This looks really good. Thank you for your amazing work on it! And sorry it took me so long to review it. I think everything looks good to go and ready to merge, I'm just thinking of adding one thing... the upload media section of the document asks for the user to provide both the file and also a shell of the object (and for the server to expect / process that). Maybe that should be added to the implmeentation report as well, or do you think that's already covered from the present wording? |
|
Do you mean having 2 new bullets for servers?
* accepts uploadedMedia file parameter
* accepts uploadedMedia object parameter
…On Sat, Mar 4, 2017, 6:03 AM Christopher Allan Webber < ***@***.***> wrote:
This looks really good. Thank you for your amazing work on it! And sorry
it took me *so long* to review it.
I think everything looks good to go and ready to merge, I'm just thinking
of adding one thing... the upload media section
<https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#uploading-media> of the document asks
for the user to provide both the file and also a shell of the object (and
for the server to expect / process that). Maybe that should be added to the
implmeentation report as well, or do you think that's already covered from
the present wording?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#174 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKfBqftTLrAnBfKlJPw3KrUv1kzLGKEks5riI4lgaJpZM4LgWy8>
.
|
|
That sounds good to me. I'm going to merge this with that change. Sound good to you? |
|
Yes
…On Sun, Mar 5, 2017, 12:53 AM Christopher Allan Webber < ***@***.***> wrote:
That sounds good to me. I'm going to merge this with that change. Sound
good to you?
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#174 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAKfBvrVhndcvtAsO4aA-Kdjye2PQfOrks5riZcLgaJpZM4LgWy8>
.
|
cwebber
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2017
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Readable version: https://github.com/gobengo/activitypub/blob/implementation-reports/implementation-reports/TEMPLATE.md
Seeking input here on general structure. I think probably the "Feature Acceptance Criteria" should be assertions in the test suite, and not checkboxes in the implementation report. If others agree, then gather those bullets can be the basis of a test suite.
I started my list of "Features" from the Exit Criteria features enumerated in 2.2. However, I am also grepping through the normative language of the spec, and some MUSTs describe behaviors outside of the 2.2 Features (e.g. Object Retrieval). Not sure if that's a problem, just pointing it out, as it could lead to there being 2 implementations of each Exit Criteria feature, but with all of those implementations ignoring MUSTs in the spec.
@cwebber do you think it's worth adding any of the following features as relevant for Exit Criteria?
I also filed #173 while working on this.