Open laurentsenta opened 1 year ago
Thank you for submitting your first issue to this repository! A maintainer will be here shortly to triage and review. In the meantime, please double-check that you have provided all the necessary information to make this process easy! Any information that can help save additional round trips is useful! We currently aim to give initial feedback within two business days. If this does not happen, feel free to leave a comment. Please keep an eye on how this issue will be labeled, as labels give an overview of priorities, assignments and additional actions requested by the maintainers:
Finally, remember to use https://discuss.ipfs.io if you just need general support.
(self-assigning, I'll take the responsibility of moving this work forward, but happy to collaborate)
Thanks for submitting this story @laurentsenta, excellent effort, we can pair on this if you'd like!
Can we mark these issues as duplicate/subtask of this issue (as I feel these can have a potential overlap):
CC: @SgtPooki
@SgtPooki @whizzzkid I updated the plan and prepared the PR for the CI side.
@lidel currently the gateway check looks like this:
the conformance test suite granularity is much finer:
(from CI)
Proposal: we define TestGroups
metadata in conformance testing that will be used in project like this one.
Related PR: https://github.com/ipfs/gateway-conformance/pull/130
note from call with @whizzzkid & @galargh
Thanks for updating @laurentsenta . A couplde of drive-by comments (don't block on me)...
In https://github.com/ipfs/public-gateway-checker/issues/442#issuecomment-1687950302 you took a screenshot including Gateway implementations rather than gateway instances. I assume that was just for convenience right? This issue concerns conformance metadata for gateway instances right?
Lots of interesting ideas in https://github.com/ipfs/public-gateway-checker/issues/442#issuecomment-1688390763. Which of these are we actually committing to? I want to make sure we don't move the goal post. Most (all?) those things seem like potential followups. I want us to get to a place where gateway checker red screen of death is gone and then we can evaluate what to do next. (I think at that point it will make sense to shift to higher impact areas.)
@BigLep apologies, I forgot to press "send" on my answer,
In https://github.com/ipfs/public-gateway-checker/issues/442#issuecomment-1687950302 you took a screenshot including Gateway implementations rather than gateway instances. I assume that was just for convenience right? This issue concerns conformance metadata for gateway instances right?
Yes, this is in relation to a discussion regarding metadata in gateway conformance (comment). The screenshot points out the difference between gateway conformance details (10+ groups) vs gateway checker level of details (4 test groups). Yesterday we ack'd with @lidel the need for a "Taxonomie for End Users" that is different from the "Taxonomie for Specs Maintainers".
Lots of interesting ideas in https://github.com/ipfs/public-gateway-checker/issues/442#issuecomment-1688390763. Which of these are we actually committing to? I want to make sure we don't move the goal post. Most (all?) those things seem like potential followups.
Definitely. I'm working on matching features with the current workflow, the rest is nice-to-have or follow-up
The ipfs/gateway-conformance has reached a point where we should be able to generate most of the info needed by our public gateway checker. Reusing the project should reduce maintenance and avoid the "Red Message Of Death" caused by the user's browser connecting with many gateways.
Interop
conformance.json:
CI: Call the gateway conformance workflow - https://github.com/ipfs/public-gateway-checker/pull/450
@laurentsenta
e2e production workflow
CI: Generate metadata (country) on the server side - https://github.com/ipfs/public-gateway-checker/issues/451
Frontend: Render the results
Make the tests pass
Follow-ups