Echidna now supports TAR files

[Antonio Olmo Titos]

Hello

Last week we updated Echidna to a new version:
https://labs.w3.org/echidna/api/version
https://github.com/w3c/echidna/releases/tag/v1.5.0

The change was adding support for TAR files: from now on, if the URL you
pass to Echidna points to an uncompressed TAR archive, Echidna will
download it, extract its contents and take it up from there as usual.

On the wiki:
https://github.com/w3c/echidna/wiki/Preparing-your-document#tar-file

As always, let us know of issues or suggestions!

[Tab Atkins Jr.]

Post by Antonio Olmo Titos
Hello
https://labs.w3.org/echidna/api/version
https://github.com/w3c/echidna/releases/tag/v1.5.0
The change was adding support for TAR files: from now on, if the URL you
pass to Echidna points to an uncompressed TAR archive, Echidna will
download it, extract its contents and take it up from there as usual.
https://github.com/w3c/echidna/wiki/Preparing-your-document#tar-file
As always, let us know of issues or suggestions!

Oh, I misunderstood the GH issue - this still requires uploading the
file to a publicly-addressable webserver and then passing a url to
Echidna?

If this is the case, using tar files is *less* convenient than what we
had to do before, because there's an extra step of "make a tar file"
where before all you had to do was upload your folder of stuff. The
entire point of asking for tar file support was so we could curl an
entire folder of resources to Echidna *directly*, skipping the "upload
to a webserver" step. This does not help Bikeshed in any significant
way at the moment.

~TJ

[Antonio Olmo Titos]

Post by Tab Atkins Jr.
Oh, I misunderstood the GH issue - this still requires uploading the
file to a publicly-addressable webserver and then passing a url to
Echidna?
If this is the case, using tar files is *less* convenient than what we
had to do before, because there's an extra step of "make a tar file"
where before all you had to do was upload your folder of stuff. The
entire point of asking for tar file support was so we could curl an
entire folder of resources to Echidna *directly*, skipping the "upload
to a webserver" step. This does not help Bikeshed in any significant
way at the moment.

:(

If that is the case and there was a misunderstanding on my part, I
apologise!

I quickly reviewed the issue [1] & PR [2], and the minutes from our TPAC
breakout session [3], and the comments there are sometimes ambiguous and
contradictory.
Some of those comments suggest "sending" the file directly instead of
"uploading" to a server; but we also said that it "would still be a file
URI".
I think at least Denis, Philippe and I went for the latter
interpretation, as we all agreed on the PR that was eventually merged.
I'm sorry that I did not gather requirements for this clearly enough.

Looking forward now.
I filed a new issue to address this [4] and assigned myself to it.
Denis, Philippe: do you see any obvious obstacles to having the API
accept large files like that?
If anyone has ideas about the best way to add that feature to the API,
please share :)

[1] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/230
[2] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/pull/241
[3] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-pub-minutes
[4] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/243

[Denis Ah-Kang]

I created a PR to allow tar upload [1].
People will be able to send tar files directly without having to use
a web server.

Denis

[1] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/pull/246

Post by Antonio Olmo Titos

Post by Tab Atkins Jr.
Oh, I misunderstood the GH issue - this still requires uploading the
file to a publicly-addressable webserver and then passing a url to
Echidna?
If this is the case, using tar files is *less* convenient than what we
had to do before, because there's an extra step of "make a tar file"
where before all you had to do was upload your folder of stuff. The
entire point of asking for tar file support was so we could curl an
entire folder of resources to Echidna *directly*, skipping the "upload
to a webserver" step. This does not help Bikeshed in any significant
way at the moment.

:(
If that is the case and there was a misunderstanding on my part, I
apologise!
I quickly reviewed the issue [1] & PR [2], and the minutes from our TPAC
breakout session [3], and the comments there are sometimes ambiguous and
contradictory.
Some of those comments suggest "sending" the file directly instead of
"uploading" to a server; but we also said that it "would still be a file
URI".
I think at least Denis, Philippe and I went for the latter
interpretation, as we all agreed on the PR that was eventually merged.
I'm sorry that I did not gather requirements for this clearly enough.
Looking forward now.
I filed a new issue to address this [4] and assigned myself to it.
Denis, Philippe: do you see any obvious obstacles to having the API
accept large files like that?
If anyone has ideas about the best way to add that feature to the API,
please share :)
[1] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/230
[2] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/pull/241
[3] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-pub-minutes
[4] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/243

[Philippe Le Hegaret]

Post by Denis Ah-Kang
I created a PR to allow tar upload [1].
People will be able to send tar files directly without having to use
a web server.

denis++ and sorry for the extra work since I remembered incorrectly,

Philippe

Post by Denis Ah-Kang
Denis
[1] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/pull/246