Interactivity API: Add server derived state getter handling #6394

sirreal · 2024-04-15T14:01:50Z

Implement derived state callback handling in server directive processing.

The implementation expects a Closure type. call_user_func was avoided because it would be difficult to differentiate the string paths in the directive from a callable function name.

Trac ticket: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/61037

This Pull Request is for code review only. Please keep all other discussion in the Trac ticket. Do not merge this Pull Request. See GitHub Pull Requests for Code Review in the Core Handbook for more details.

github-actions · 2024-04-15T14:25:04Z

Test using WordPress Playground

The changes in this pull request can previewed and tested using a WordPress Playground instance.

WordPress Playground is an experimental project that creates a full WordPress instance entirely within the browser.

Some things to be aware of

The Plugin and Theme Directories cannot be accessed within Playground.
All changes will be lost when closing a tab with a Playground instance.
All changes will be lost when refreshing the page.
A fresh instance is created each time the link below is clicked.
Every time this pull request is updated, a new ZIP file containing all changes is created. If changes are not reflected in the Playground instance,
it's possible that the most recent build failed, or has not completed. Check the list of workflow runs to be sure.

For more details about these limitations and more, check out the Limitations page in the WordPress Playground documentation.

Test this pull request with WordPress Playground.

github-actions · 2024-04-18T11:17:36Z

The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the props-bot label.

Core Committers: Use this line as a base for the props when committing in SVN:

Props jonsurrell, darerodz, gziolo, luisherranz, cbravobernal.

To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook.

luisherranz · 2024-04-22T10:28:12Z

Thanks for working on this, Jon 🙂

I think function closures is the way to go!

We had them implemented exactly as you've done here before, but we removed them to have more time to evaluate them before its public release.

However, what about mimicking the client store and, instead of this:

wp_interactivity_state( 'myPlugin', array(
  'list' => array(1, 2, 3),
  'text' => __('this is'),
  'itemText' => function( $store ) {
    return $store['state']['text'] . ': ' . $store['context']['item'];
  }
));

Do this:

$state = wp_interactivity_state( 'myPlugin', array(
  'list' => array(1, 2, 3),
  'text' => __('this is'),
  'itemText' => function() use ($state) {
    $context = wp_interactivity_get_context( 'myPlugin' );
    return $state['text'] . ': ' . $context['item'];
  }
));

That way, it'd work with the "same API" in the client and in the server.

What do you think?

DAreRodz · 2024-04-23T10:05:36Z

That way, it'd work with the "same API" in the client and in the server.

What do you think?

I think that would be nice. 😄

Just a note: for both approaches, if you want to read from a getter, I guess you would have to execute it, right? And it's the same for both approaches, with the difference that, for the second case, you don't have to pass any arguments. Following the example above, let's imagine that state.text is also a getter:

Approach 1

wp_interactivity_state( 'myPlugin', array(
  'list' => array(1, 2, 3),
  'text' => function ( $store ) {
    return __( $store['context']['text'] );
  },
  'itemText' => function ( $store ) {
    return $store['state']['text']( $store ) . ': ' . $store['context']['item'];
  }
));

Approach 2

$state = wp_interactivity_state( 'myPlugin', array(
  'list' => array(1, 2, 3),
  'text' => function () {
    $context = wp_interactivity_get_context( 'myPlugin' );
    return __( $store['context']['text'] );
  },
  'itemText' => function () use ( $state ) {
    $context = wp_interactivity_get_context( 'myPlugin' );
    return $state['text']() . ': ' . $context['item'];
  }
));

I see a benefit with the second approach: you don't need a reference to the $store to read the value from a state getter. 🤔

sirreal · 2024-04-23T16:36:00Z

I don't think it's viable to use a closure over the $state variable. That's effectively a snapshot of the state, but I think we should have access to the full state when the callback runs. I believe this aligns with what we have on the client.

Consider the following:

$s1 = wp_interactivity_state( 'ns', array( 'x'=>'y' ) );
$s2 = wp_interactivity_state( 'ns', array( 'z'=>'2' ) );

var_dump($s1, $s2, $s1 === $s2);

This prints:

array(1) {
  ["x"]=>
  string(1) "y"
}
array(2) {
  ["x"]=>
  string(1) "y"
  ["z"]=>
  string(1) "2"
}
bool(false)

The state changes and $s1 is out of date. Our closure might see that (depending on subsequent state changes). When the callback is evaluated, it should access the up-to-date current state at that moment.

If we were to use closures, we'd probably have to resort to some ugly reference passing that I don't think is a good idea.

luisherranz · 2024-04-25T11:45:58Z

What about this?

wp_interactivity_state( 'myPlugin', array(
  'list' => array(1, 2, 3),
  'text' => __('this is'),
  'itemText' => function() {
    $state   = wp_interactivity_state( 'myPlugin' );
    $context = wp_interactivity_get_context( 'myPlugin' );
    return $state['text'] . ': ' . $context['item'];
  }
));

sirreal · 2024-04-25T13:16:25Z

That seems like it would work, but what's the advantage? Is there a drawback to passing in the state and context as parameters? We'd have to implement the context function which doesn't exist right now as far as I know. That function would also only make sense when called in one of these functions while processing directives, right?

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php

tests/phpunit/tests/interactivity-api/wpInteractivityAPI.php

luisherranz · 2024-05-02T20:09:10Z

Is there a drawback to passing in the state and context as parameters?

I see a few drawbacks/inconsistencies with the old syntax.

In the client, the context is not part of the store, so store['context'] in the server would be inconsistent.
In the server, stores don't exist per se, only the initial state of those client stores, so store itself doesn't make much sense (as opposed to accessing state directly).
In the client, getters don't get the store via arguments.
In the client you can access other namespaces passing the namespace to the functions (store( 'otherPlugin' ) or getContext( 'otherPlugin')). If we use arguments, it's not clear how to get the state or context from a different namespace.

I agree that using functions to get the state and context feels boilerplaty (especially with WordPress' long function names), but it would be the way to make it more consistent with the client experience.

By the way, as those server "getters" are synchronous, maybe we can populate the default namespace and omit it, like we do in the client:

wp_interactivity_state( 'myPlugin', array(
  'list' => array(1, 2, 3),
  'text' => __('this is'),
  'itemText' => function() {
    $state   = wp_interactivity_state();
    $context = wp_interactivity_get_context();
    return $state['text'] . ': ' . $context['item'];
  }
));

DAreRodz · 2024-05-21T09:55:37Z

A couple of notes after playing a bit with this PR, trying to follow @luisherranz's approach:

The functions to access the state and the context inside getters (wp_interactivity_state and wp_interactivity_get_context) are global.
They have access to the global WP_Interactivity_API instance.
They depend on the current state, context and namespace stacks during a process_directives() call.
The state is available from a WP_Interactivity_API instance, but the context and namespace aren't. Instead, they're local to the process_directives() method and passed down to other methods as arguments (see this).
That's what we're trying to avoid in this case... 🤔

To solve this, I guess we need to move the context and namespace stacks to class properties. @sirreal, do you agree with this approach? Any concerns or different ideas?

PS: if we do this, I imagine that would require updating a bunch of PHPUnit tests... 😬

sirreal · 2024-05-21T11:42:21Z

Yes, I think that makes sense because those global functions need to access those things.

DAreRodz · 2024-05-22T15:54:56Z

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php

 	 * @return string|null The processed HTML content. It returns null when the HTML contains unbalanced tags.
 	 */
-	private function process_directives_args( string $html, array &$context_stack, array &$namespace_stack ) {
+	private function process_directives_args( string $html ) {


I decided to keep this method separated as an internal function that can be called recursively (e.g., inside data_wp_each_processor). However, I guess the name process_directives_args is no longer appropriate.

Do you have new name ideas? 🤔

Why is the name wrong now?

Not that it's wrong now, haha. But maybe it is? 😄 I just thought that the _args part in the name referred to the context and namespace stacks being passed as args, so it was no longer relevant.

Oh, I see. So theres process_directives (public function) which calls process_directives_args, and that suffix doesn't make sense.

Yes, I think it could be updated, it's private anyways. Maybe it could just be _process_directives?

Done in 2215c9a.

PS: I tried to come up with a more descriptive name (with no success). 😅

sirreal

Nice work @DAreRodz, I left some suggestions and questions, but I don't see any major issues right now.

sirreal · 2024-05-23T11:29:06Z

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php

+	public function state( string $store_namespace = '', array $state = array() ): array {
+		if ( ! $store_namespace ) {
+			$store_namespace = end( $this->namespace_stack );
+		}


This was a function with a required argument and an optional argument. Now, I think it's more complicated. It's a function with one behavior with 0-1 arguments, and with 2 arguments it's different. For example, state( '', [ 'foo' => 'bar' ] ) is wrong, right? Setting state requires an explicit namespace:

state() => lookup

state( 'ns' ) => lookup

state( 'ns', ['x'=>'y'] ) => set + lookup

state( '', ['x'=>'y'] ) => ⛔️ wrong!

We should never be calling this like state( '', [ 'foo' => 'bar' ] ), right?

Suggested change

public function state( string $store_namespace = '', array $state = array() ): array {

if ( ! $store_namespace ) {

$store_namespace = end( $this->namespace_stack );

}

public function state( ?string $store_namespace = null, ?array $state = null ): array {

if ( ! $store_namespace ) {

if ( $state ) {

// doing it wrong? shouldn't have falsy ns + state setting

}

if ( null !== $store_namespace ) {

// doing it wrong? Empty string is not allowed.

}

$store_namespace = end( $this->namespace_stack );

}

It also seems like null is a better default value, we don't need to create the array and it should work well with the is_array check later. It seems like the array_replace_recursive call with empty array wouldn't do anything, right?

Yeah, I think that's better behavior. I'll update the implementation.

Fixed in 93acfc0.

sirreal · 2024-05-23T11:37:15Z

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php

+	 *
+	 * @param string $store_namespace Optional. The unique store namespace identifier.
+	 */
+	public function get_context( string $store_namespace = '' ): array {


It seems preferable to me to use null to indicate "doesn't exist" instead of empty string. We could also add "doing it wrong" messages here if empty string is passed.

Suggested change

public function get_context( string $store_namespace = '' ): array {

public function get_context( ?string $store_namespace = null ): array {

Fixed in 42e3e62.

sirreal · 2024-05-23T11:38:19Z

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php

 	 * @return string|null The processed HTML content. It returns null when the HTML contains unbalanced tags.
 	 */
-	private function process_directives_args( string $html, array &$context_stack, array &$namespace_stack ) {
+	private function process_directives_args( string $html ) {


Why is the name wrong now?

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php

sirreal · 2024-05-23T11:44:43Z

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php

@@ -396,6 +459,10 @@ private function evaluate( $directive_value, string $default_namespace, $context
 			}
 		}

+		if ( $current instanceof Closure ) {
+			$current = $current();


This seems like an easy place to break things by passing a closure that throws. Should we wrap this in try/catch with doing it wrong?

Done in 3f571c0.

sirreal · 2024-05-23T11:48:25Z

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/interactivity-api.php

+ * @param string $store_namespace Optional. The unique store namespace identifier.
+ * @return array The context for the specified store namespace.
+ */
+function wp_interactivity_get_context( string $store_namespace = '' ): array {


I recommended this inside the class.

The wp_interactivity_state function above also needs to be updated to match the class method.

Suggested change

* @param string $store_namespace Optional. The unique store namespace identifier.

* @return array The context for the specified store namespace.

*/

function wp_interactivity_get_context( string $store_namespace = '' ): array {

* @param string|null $store_namespace Optional. The unique store namespace identifier.

* @return array The context for the specified store namespace.

*/

function wp_interactivity_get_context( ?string $store_namespace ): array {

That looks better. Thanks. 👍

Fixed in 48ebafd.

sirreal · 2024-05-23T11:51:04Z

tests/phpunit/tests/interactivity-api/wpInteractivityAPI.php

+					$state   = $this->interactivity->state();
+					$context = $this->interactivity->get_context();


Do we have any tests using the global functions?

We don't. I guess I could use them here, but I'd have to modify the global WP_Interactivity_API instance, which is the one used by the global functions.

Done in a1fb279.

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php

DAreRodz · 2024-05-28T07:31:07Z

@sirreal I think I've addressed all your suggestions. Could you take another quick look?

If everything is OK, I guess the PR is ready to be merged. cc @gziolo.

gziolo · 2024-05-28T07:56:26Z

tests/phpunit/tests/interactivity-api/wpInteractivityAPI.php

+	 * @covers ::state
+	 */
+	public function test_state_without_namespace() {
+		$interactivity = new ReflectionClass( $this->interactivity );


Would it be possible to rewrite the tests to avoid using reflections and exposing all the internals? It's very difficult to say how it all works just by looking at the test. One of the benefits of having code coverage is also documenting how the API can be used.

I agree, this is difficult to follow and seems to rely a lot on internals.

This sounds like a big refactor (maybe it could be pulled out to its own PR landed before this) but could we do something where we reset the global Interactivity API between tests in setup or teardown methods? Maybe that could use Reflection if absolutely necessary, but at least it should be isolate to one place.

I'd really like to see tests setting declaring their own state. I think the tests would become easier to read for the most part and it would make it easier to understand when there are multiple namespaces in play.

I've been thinking about approaching this refactor and don't see an easy fix. A thing that comes up would be to inject the namespace and context stacks somehow, maybe during the WP_Interactivity_API instantiation. Or maybe pass them as arguments to the evaluate method, even though they are private properties.

Another thing would be if it makes sense to test private methods in unit tests. Maybe we need to rethink the way tests are written. 🤔

I'm OK leaving this for now.

I'd really like to see tests setting declaring their own state. I think the tests would become easier to read for the most part and it would make it easier to understand when there are multiple namespaces in play.

@gziolo, @sirreal, I've created two helper methods to define the internal namespace and context stacks and moved the relevant state to each test case. At least the test code is easier to understand and maintain this way.

That seems much better, thanks.

sirreal

Thanks for the work on this @DAreRodz! A lot of this looks very nice, I've left a few comments and questions and I'd like to know your thoughts.

sirreal · 2024-05-28T09:47:26Z

tests/phpunit/tests/interactivity-api/wpInteractivityAPI.php

+	 */
+	public function test_evaluate_derived_state() {
+		$result = $this->evaluate( 'state.derived' );
+		$this->assertEquals( "Derived state: myPlugin-state\nDerived context: myPlugin-context", $result );


There's a preference to use assertSame where possible (strict equals vs. loose equals):

Suggested change

$this->assertEquals( "Derived state: myPlugin-state\nDerived context: myPlugin-context", $result );

$this->assertSame( "Derived state: myPlugin-state\nDerived context: myPlugin-context", $result );

Fixed in 3cf4236.

sirreal · 2024-05-28T09:50:05Z

tests/phpunit/tests/interactivity-api/wpInteractivityAPI.php

+	 */
+	public function test_evaluate_derived_state_that_throws() {
+		$result = $this->evaluate( 'state.derivedThatThrows' );
+		$this->assertEquals( null, $result );


Suggested change

$this->assertEquals( null, $result );

$this->assertNull( $result );

Fixed in 3cf4236.

sirreal · 2024-05-28T10:03:09Z

tests/phpunit/tests/interactivity-api/wpInteractivityAPI.php

+	 * @covers ::state
+	 */
+	public function test_state_without_namespace() {
+		$interactivity = new ReflectionClass( $this->interactivity );


I agree, this is difficult to follow and seems to rely a lot on internals.

This sounds like a big refactor (maybe it could be pulled out to its own PR landed before this) but could we do something where we reset the global Interactivity API between tests in setup or teardown methods? Maybe that could use Reflection if absolutely necessary, but at least it should be isolate to one place.

I'd really like to see tests setting declaring their own state. I think the tests would become easier to read for the most part and it would make it easier to understand when there are multiple namespaces in play.

sirreal · 2024-05-28T10:08:22Z

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php

-		$context_stack   = array();
-		$namespace_stack = array();


One thing that I wonder about, at this top level these values always started empty at this level. I wonder if the properties should also be cleaned here. Are they ever reset to an empty array? Could we get into a state where we expect these to be empty (to start processing) but a previous call left them "dirty" with data from the last process call?

I am having some second thoughts about moving these to a class property because they are really scoped to this function. One alternative might be to pass them by reference. I think the result would be similar but they'd be clearly scoped to this function instead of class properties that only make sense at a particular time in the class.

I am having some second thoughts about moving these to a class property because they are really scoped to this function. One alternative might be to pass them by reference. I think the result would be similar but they'd be clearly scoped to this function instead of class properties that only make sense at a particular time in the class.

That's how it worked previously, right?

To be honest, I completely agree it would be a better approach. The main issue is how to make that temporary state available through a class method, i.e., wp_interactivity()->get_context(). That's why I decided to use class properties.

Would it make sense to preserve all the previous logic but store some internal references to the locally instantiated context & namespace stacks so we can use them inside get_context()? 🤔

The main issue is how to make that temporary state available through a class method, i.e., wp_interactivity()->get_context()

Right 😅 I forgot about this essential bit. Let's keep the class properties.

What if these stacks were created when this function runs and nulled when the function returns so they're unusable outside of directive processing?

@DAreRodz What do you think about this part of the question?

One thing that I wonder about, at this top level these values always started empty at this level. I wonder if the properties should also be cleaned here. Are they ever reset to an empty array? Could we get into a state where we expect these to be empty (to start processing) but a previous call left them "dirty" with data from the last process call?

Should these properties should be nullable? They'd be set to arrays during directive processing and set back to null when processing is complete. That would give us a nice way to show _doing_it_wrong messages when using functions the wrong way or outside of processing, it would be a null check.

It makes sense, as this method is synchronously executed, and there is no opportunity to call it again in the middle.

Done in 670022b. I've also added a _doing_it_wrong message for state() and get_context() when they are called outside of a process_directives call.

sirreal

Nice work @DAreRodz, thanks for working through all the details. I can't approve since it's "my" PR, but I think this is in a good place ✅

(I left two small suggestions to avoid "after" language in a comment when we really mean "before or after").

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php

luisherranz

I've only had the chance to take a quick look at it, but the code seems fine to me. I approve it on behalf of Jon 🙂

cbravobernal

The PR looks great and would be awesome to add it this release.

gziolo · 2024-06-04T07:47:30Z

@sirreal or @DAreRodz, can you rebase this PR so I could commit it?

Co-authored-by: Jon Surrell <sirreal@users.noreply.github.com>

DAreRodz

Thanks for the rebase, @sirreal! 👏

gziolo · 2024-06-04T10:59:49Z

Committed with https://core.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/58327.

sirreal marked this pull request as ready for review April 18, 2024 11:17

sirreal mentioned this pull request Apr 18, 2024

Interactivity API: Iteration for WP 6.6 WordPress/gutenberg#60219

Closed

sirreal commented Apr 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

sirreal commented Apr 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

tests/phpunit/tests/interactivity-api/wpInteractivityAPI.php Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tests/phpunit/tests/interactivity-api/wpInteractivityAPI.php Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

DAreRodz reviewed May 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

sirreal commented May 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

gziolo reviewed May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

sirreal commented May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

sirreal commented Jun 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/wp-includes/interactivity-api/class-wp-interactivity-api.php Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

luisherranz approved these changes Jun 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

cbravobernal approved these changes Jun 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

sirreal force-pushed the add/interactivity-derived-state-getter branch from 02c9ff0 to 69aa352 Compare June 4, 2024 08:41

sirreal and others added 6 commits June 4, 2024 11:24

Add derived state getters to server directive processing

34a317f

Add derived state test

4cf43f1

Move namespace and context stacks to instance props WIP

709882d

Adapt wp-interactive processor

6efa23e

Adapt wp-context processor

b8aa4a4

Adapt other directive processors

0b46bf6

DAreRodz and others added 25 commits June 4, 2024 11:24

Fix some typos

fea9d41

Fix $context_stack type

805c38b

Co-authored-by: Jon Surrell <sirreal@users.noreply.github.com>

Fix $namespace_stack type

0560c0a

Co-authored-by: Jon Surrell <sirreal@users.noreply.github.com>

Fix typo

1ec7374

Co-authored-by: Jon Surrell <sirreal@users.noreply.github.com>

Add "doing it wrong" messages in state

ca8b26a

Add "doing it wrong" messages in get_context

4eca220

Update wp_interactivity_get_context types

a59c2de

Update wp_interactivity_state types and tests

b8355c5

Catch throwables when evaluating state callbacks

ac50a0c

Rename process_directives_args to _process_directives

ce04701

Use better assert functions

3cbe041

Define state in tests

719b726

Fix state getter evaluation

b8b324e

Fix set_internal_context_stack types

6371d61

Set internal stacks to null outside of directive processing

31aaf89

Refactor tests

b379880

Remove trailing commas

8e721a4

Rephrase comment

5d04acb

More comment fixes

e534ba8

More comment fixes

6a4a936

Update wp_interactivity_state description

b53cee5

Improve $namespace_stack description

456becb

Co-authored-by: Jon Surrell <sirreal@users.noreply.github.com>

Improve $context_stack description

db37a42

Co-authored-by: Jon Surrell <sirreal@users.noreply.github.com>

Minor fixes in test case naming

ea617ba

Update for other changes before rebase

a0f0e9e

DAreRodz force-pushed the add/interactivity-derived-state-getter branch from 69aa352 to a0f0e9e Compare June 4, 2024 09:25

DAreRodz approved these changes Jun 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

gziolo closed this Jun 4, 2024

gziolo deleted the add/interactivity-derived-state-getter branch June 4, 2024 10:59

	public function get_context( string $store_namespace = '' ): array {
	public function get_context( ?string $store_namespace = null ): array {

		$state = $this->interactivity->state();
		$context = $this->interactivity->get_context();

	$this->assertEquals( "Derived state: myPlugin-state\nDerived context: myPlugin-context", $result );
	$this->assertSame( "Derived state: myPlugin-state\nDerived context: myPlugin-context", $result );

	$this->assertEquals( null, $result );
	$this->assertNull( $result );

Interactivity API: Add server derived state getter handling #6394

Interactivity API: Add server derived state getter handling #6394

Conversation

sirreal commented Apr 15, 2024 • edited Loading

github-actions bot commented Apr 15, 2024

Test using WordPress Playground

Some things to be aware of

github-actions bot commented Apr 18, 2024 • edited Loading

luisherranz commented Apr 22, 2024

DAreRodz commented Apr 23, 2024

sirreal commented Apr 23, 2024

luisherranz commented Apr 25, 2024 • edited Loading

sirreal commented Apr 25, 2024

luisherranz commented May 2, 2024 • edited Loading

DAreRodz commented May 21, 2024

sirreal commented May 21, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sirreal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

DAreRodz commented May 28, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sirreal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sirreal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

luisherranz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cbravobernal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gziolo commented Jun 4, 2024

DAreRodz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gziolo commented Jun 4, 2024

sirreal commented Apr 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Apr 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

luisherranz commented Apr 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

luisherranz commented May 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading