Remove TypeScript #971

afcapel · 2023-09-06T11:36:37Z

https://world.hey.com/dhh/turbo-8-is-dropping-typescript-70165c01

marcoroth · 2023-09-06T11:46:39Z

I'm not really sure if removing TypeScript is the best approach. For me, it really helped with contributing and I feel like it still makes sense to use for library-level code. The DX you get from it is really valuable and actually helps catching bugs.

But I also get that it can get annoying really quick in certain situations. But removing the Types altogether (even without JSDocs and/or .d.ts files) is a step back, for both library users and and contributors.

adrienpoly · 2023-09-06T12:57:15Z

I will second Marco here. TS is not my main contribution language and I can understand that it makes it harder for a non TS developer to contribute. This being said TS really helped me when I first contributed to Stimulus. And all the work that was done to define all those types is really valuable IMHO.

Switching back to JS means :

lot's of the Hotwire eco system packages will be broken
All current open PRs are now fully obsolete. Some from my point of view were very good candidates
IDE won't provide any more autocompletion as they did

I am sure they are some rationales behind that move and we would love to hear them.

If strict typing is really the issue did you ever consider keeping the TS types with loosened typing rules so that new contribution doesn't have to be fully type

rik · 2023-09-06T13:13:47Z

Have you considered using TSDoc to keep types without needing to compile the codebase with tsc?

(Without knowing the rationale for this change, maybe my comment is moot)

seanpdoyle · 2023-09-06T13:24:37Z

With this change, we'd lose the majority of the benefits we gain with the delegate system that powers the majority of our internal architecture. Defining an interface that maps to callbacks that accept arguments only really works with some kind of type enforcement. Without it, interfaces and delegates are prone to drift apart.

Even without introducing types of our own, enforcing the browser-provided types has been extremely valuable.

Personally, I'm very much opposed to removing types entirely. What are the main sources of friction that are motivating this change?

dhh · 2023-09-06T13:58:30Z

Fully recognize that TypeScript offers some people some advantages, but to my eyes, the benefits are evident in this PR. The code not only reads much better, it's also freed of the type wrangling and gymnastics needed to please the TS compiler.

We write all our client side code at 37signals now in pure JavaScript and the same too with any internal libraries. This is going to bring that in line.

All the love and appreciation to contributors who would prefer TypeScript. This is one of those debates where arguments aren't likely to move anyone's fundamental position, so I won't attempt to do that.

vfonic

This PR, created 3h ago and merged 1h ago, seems very rushed.

This PR fundamentally changes the library. It changes the library's main language. I don't see the need to rush this? Why was this rushed?

Was there any prior discussion on this change?

This is an open-source library, not just source available.
There are many other open-source libraries using this library directly or indirectly.

And making this important change rushed, ignoring ALL (and I mean ALL) of the PR comments...sets a precedent.

Is this how Ruby on Rails will be developed as well? On a one man's whim?
Why do we always have to have these arguments? What was so difficult to ask the community (including maintainers), have a constructive discussion, and come up with an agreement whether or not to switch from TS to JS? Or do we just wait for @dhh to make a blog post and then we'll just implement whatever was written there.

You could've better used your time addressing some of the open PRs.

/rant

EDIT: This change here seems to make tests fail:
#971 (comment)
I'm not sure how the tests are passing?

EDIT 2: Seems like the string that was changed is not part of what is being tested, but a part of the error message that will be shown to the developer if the test fails. Thanks @chigia001

vfonic · 2023-09-06T14:29:15Z

.eslintrc.js

+    sourceType: "module"
+  },
+  rules: {
+    "comma-dangle": "error",


Some of these changes seem not relevant to the PR title/subject. Why were these introduced in this PR?

vfonic · 2023-09-06T14:29:40Z

package.json

    "express": "^4.18.2",
    "multer": "^1.4.2",
-    "prettier": "2.6.2",


How come "prettier" was removed in this PR?

I think this is very nice, we dont need it.

Why format or type your code just yolo and hope for the best!

vfonic · 2023-09-06T14:32:36Z

src/core/drive/error_renderer.js

-export class ErrorRenderer extends Renderer<HTMLBodyElement, PageSnapshot> {
-  static renderElement(currentElement: HTMLBodyElement, newElement: HTMLBodyElement) {
+export class ErrorRenderer extends Renderer {
+  static renderElement(currentElement, newElement) {


We lost information here. currentElement: HTMLBodyElement makes it obvious this is not any HTML element, but <body> element. Maybe you could rename currentElement to currentBodyElement or add a comment explaining it's not any HTML element?

vfonic · 2023-09-06T14:33:45Z

src/core/drive/form_submission.js

      target: this.formElement,
-      detail: { formSubmission: this },


Why was the formatting style changed in this PR? This seems irrelevant.

vfonic · 2023-09-06T14:34:40Z

src/core/drive/form_submission.js

@@ -251,7 +217,7 @@ export class FormSubmission {
  }
 }

-function buildFormData(formElement: HTMLFormElement, submitter?: HTMLElement): FormData {
+function buildFormData(formElement, submitter) {


It might be useful to know that submitter is optional argument here.

How would one express that? The variable now needs to be renamed?

@pailhead The right way to rewrite the function signature is clearly buildFormData(formElement, submitterWhichIsAnOptionalHTMLElement).

Did you already forget the only correct, Hungarian Notation? mhtmle_submitter, where m is for maybe, to mimic Haskell style, html namespaces the complex types present in the browser and e is for element of course.

/s

Oh wow, I didn’t know this could be expressed so clearly. Thank you for clarifying.

This one is interesting. I would have no idea what a "submitter's" purpose is here with or without Typescript.

I am excited to see how this code base changes without Typescript. The "types" or what things are will have to be communicated in some way. This may lead to very readable code.

vfonic · 2023-09-06T14:48:06Z

src/http/index.js

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+export * from "./fetch_request"
+export * from "./fetch_response"


Is this file needed? The .ts file was only exporting types. I don't see where this is being used, so this file can probably be removed.

vfonic · 2023-09-06T14:49:01Z

src/observers/form_link_click_observer.js

-  willFollowLinkToLocation(link: Element, location: URL, originalEvent: MouseEvent): boolean {
+  // Link click observer delegate
+
+  willFollowLinkToLocation(link, location, originalEvent) {


Might be worth noting that originalEvent is MouseEvent?

Same for other arguments: link is Element, not URL, which might be confusing now and location is not window.location.

Same below.

vfonic · 2023-09-06T14:52:47Z

src/tests/functional/form_mode_tests.js

@@ -65,11 +65,11 @@ test("test form submission with form mode optin and form enabled from submitter
  assert.ok(await formSubmitStarted(page))
 })

-async function gotoPageWithFormMode(page: Page, formMode: "on" | "off" | "optin") {
+async function gotoPageWithFormMode(page, formMode) {


Would be great to document that formMode could be one of "on", "off", and "optin"

@vfonic how do you know it can be one of those three? It looks like it can be any primitive, object, null or undefined?

@pailhead because it was typed like this before 🤷‍♂️?

That's the point. That information is now gone, so now it can be anything.

I think they want to rely on tests now only to catch these misuses. Hopefully there is a test for this.

@Wirone it is a large PR and there is no type to narrow it. Without seeing who is calling it I don’t think it’s possible to narrow it down to even a string, let alone these three particular ones. But at best, it feels like it would be one recommendation of how to use it. I can pass Elephant into it. I probably won’t catch it, my user will.

That's the point, there was a way to narrow it and now it's gone. It should be at least documented, as @vfonic suggested, to keep this information, even if in less strict form.

vfonic · 2023-09-06T14:53:49Z

src/tests/functional/form_submission_tests.js

@@ -1075,14 +1075,14 @@ test("test following a link with [data-turbo-method] set when html[data-turbo=fa

  await page.click("#turbo-method-post-to-targeted-frame")

-  assert.equal(await page.textContent("h1"), "Hello", "treats link as a full-page navigation")
+  assert.equal(await page.textContent("h1"), "Hello", "treats link full-page navigation")


How did the tests work before? This is an odd change. Where is this changed in the implementation (outside of test code)?

This seems like a breaking change. It looks like this was made via a global "find TypeScript as XXX and replace all with '' (empty string)"

"treats link as a full-page navigation" is a error message, display when assert fail. It not what the code actually testing. So it don't really break any test, and should not be consider a breaking change.

But yeah, I agree with your assessment how this change happen.

@chigia001 did the meaning of the test here change? This indicates that a link should now be treated as a page and not a link? The previous one seemed like it dealt with something else.

@pailhead I'm not going to defend this specific change. I just want to anwser the reviewer question on How did the tests work before?, and why that should not consider a Breaking Change.

This change do indicate the method of how the PR's owner remove the code, (which is sensible approach, I will do the same if I have similar requirement), and lack of code-review from the approver.

vfonic · 2023-09-06T15:02:35Z

src/tests/functional/rendering_tests.js

@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ test("test before-cache event", async ({ page }) => {
  assert.equal(await page.textContent("body"), "Modified")
 })

-test("test mutation record as before-cache notification", async ({ page }) => {
+test("test mutation record-cache notification", async ({ page }) => {


This seems to have been removed by error like mentioned in my previous comment

This is testing the mutation record as it tested it before, with this additional notification caching. It’s probably an intended change just doesn’t belong in this PR?

this change and the other similar one seem to be due to a global find-replace to remove as X, which is a TypeScript syntax. kind of funny it affected these test descriptions

julianrubisch · 2023-09-06T16:29:29Z

You do you, but this breaks about every PR in the repo (including 3 from me for which I haven't received any feedback) without any prior notice.

I would lie if I said I'm surprised, but this is certainly a slap in the face for anybody who likes to contribute.

Certainly a lesson to me to not rely on consistent open source governance from you.

hanayashiki · 2023-09-06T18:02:09Z

🤡

JoshuaLuckers · 2023-09-06T18:14:23Z

This is a nice example of how to kill contributions from other people in 3.. 2.. 1..

gassius · 2023-09-06T18:24:47Z

This is a fine example of a phillosophycal PR. Great work making your point!

anri-asaturov · 2023-09-06T18:48:06Z

This looks like political activism more than a thought through decision.

jhubert · 2023-09-06T18:59:49Z

As someone who has benefitted tremendously from the opinionated decision making that produced active record, rails, turbo, etc... I'll just say thanks for being decisive. I'd rather deal with change than indecision and bloat.

Also, TypeScript hurts to write. Good riddance. 😄

NSAntoine · 2023-09-06T19:13:10Z

Absolute tomfoolery.

cvpcasada · 2023-09-06T19:27:14Z

Folks considering removing typescript in their codebases should have at the least JSDocs as alternative as this is just hostile to library users and contributors relying on IDE autocomplete.

ReDBrother · 2023-09-06T19:27:30Z

This is a nice example of how to kill contributions from other people in 3.. 2.. 1..

It's funny suggestion consider how many people commited on project =)
I think that changes it's huge releave for core developers)

franklin-tina · 2023-09-06T19:38:09Z

Since going full TS last year with work, personal projects, and freelancing, my usage of profanity/curse words has increased 💯.
Some days, it feels like I know TS.
Things would work as expected.
Good days.

Most days (even today) I just curse and swear and want to cry.
Then I sign off with 'any' or bloody casting.

Most people here hate and suffer from TS more than they care to admit, but whatever 😴

Great decision!

JoshuaLuckers · 2023-09-06T19:39:47Z

This is a nice example of how to kill contributions from other people in 3.. 2.. 1..

I’m an Open Source contributor myself and I know how hard it is to contribute. A change like this would really grind my gears. Especially if I have a PR open where I contributed my valuable time.

Edit: yes this was a quote of myself, it should have been part of my original comment

junaidveeve · 2023-09-06T19:44:12Z

I love internet ❤ 🤣😁

AndKenneth · 2023-09-06T23:16:48Z

If you want to see someone justify their decision to remove typescript without dismissing it as a holy war, go read Rich Harris' explanation on why Svelte moved from TypeScript to JS+JSDoc. Real solidly reasoned opinion that not everyone will agree with, but it truly points out some of the issues with TypeScript and why a maintainer MIGHT want to move away from it.

Rich Harris:

Lordy, I did not expect an internal refactoring PR to end up #1 on Hacker News. Let me provide some context, since a lot of people make a lot of assumptions whenever this stuff comes up!
If you're rabidly anti-TypeScript and think that us doing this vindicates your position, I'm about to disappoint you. If you're rabidly pro-TypeScript and think we're a bunch of luddite numpties, I'm about to disappoint you as well.

Firstly: we are not abandoning type safety or anything daft like that — we're just moving type declarations from .ts files to .js files with JSDoc annotations. As a user of Svelte, this won't affect your ability to use TypeScript with Svelte at all — functions exported from Svelte will still have all the same benefits of TypeScript that you're used to (typechecking, intellisense, inline documentation etc). Our commitment to TypeScript is stronger than ever (for an example of this, see https://svelte.dev/blog/zero-config-type-safety).

I would say that this will result in no changes that are observable to users of the framework, but that's not quite true — it will result in smaller packages (no need to ship giant sourcemaps etc), and you'll be able to e.g. debug the framework by cmd-clicking on functions you import from svelte and its subpackages (instead of taking you to an unhelpful type declaration, it will take you to the actual source, which you'll be able to edit right inside node_modules to see changes happen). I expect this to lower the bar to contributing to the framework quite substantially, since you'll no longer need to a) figure out how to link the repo, b) run our build process in watch mode, and c) understand the mapping between source and dist code in order to see changes.

So this will ultimately benefit our users and contributors. But it will also benefit us, since we're often testing changes to the source code against sandbox projects, and this workflow is drastically nicer than dealing with build steps. We also eliminate an entire class of annoying papercuts that will be familiar to anyone who has worked with the uneven landscape of TypeScript tooling. The downside is that writing types in JSDoc isn't quite as nice as writing in TypeScript. It's a relatively small price to pay (though opinions on this do differ among the team - this is a regular source of lively debate).

We're doing this for practical reasons, not ideological ones — we've been building SvelteKit (as opposed to Svelte) this way for a long time and it's been miraculous for productivity.

The disrespect of not preparing your PR submitters for this is also awful.

Sauce: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35892250

aymende7 · 2023-09-06T23:18:19Z

sdcoffey · 2023-09-06T23:24:45Z

this sucks a lot!

AndKenneth · 2023-09-06T23:30:43Z

Matt put it best

Boye95 · 2023-09-06T23:40:57Z

Let me just say I'm learning a lot about OSS from these "conversations"

pi0 · 2023-09-06T23:42:49Z

iwdt · 2023-09-06T23:43:02Z

turbo is now RIP. removing end-user interfaces without any alternatives is bold decision, but also useless

dahchon · 2023-09-06T23:54:28Z

What we're afraid of is not TS vs. JS.

It is the lack of listening and diversity of inputs of the Rails community.

eligrey · 2023-09-06T23:55:56Z

A significant portion of this PR contains functional changes to modify public 'private-type' fields to be actually private. Is this intended?

These are functional changes that will affect anyone who relied on these fields being technically public. Personally, I am all for the change to use the proper private field syntax.

franklin-tina · 2023-09-07T00:09:33Z

Matt put it best

Matt is one of the nicest people on X, but he also sells TS courses/workshops.
I wouldn't expect him to agree.

Lol, like you're expecting NRA executives to support laws banning guns 😂

franklin-tina · 2023-09-07T00:12:00Z

Solidified my reasoning to use htmx over turbo. Your governance has been a shortlist of how not to treat a project and community, thanks 👍🏻

Lol... let's see if he'll lose an arm because you're not using Turbo.

iiAbady · 2023-09-07T01:06:29Z

The thing is, it's not about whether javascript or typescript is more suitable for this library. It's about how OSS should operate. Rushing a PR that, not just only have breaking changes but change the language of the library altogether is big no-no.

yellowberryHN · 2023-09-07T01:11:59Z

I can certainly support the swift eradication of TypeScript, but this is certainly not the way to go about it.

phinnaeus · 2023-09-07T01:17:45Z

Of course as a rational person I agree with pursuing speed and efficiency at all costs. Personally, I don't think removing TypeScript goes far enough. This library should be immediately rewritten in Rust as that is the only way to achieve maximum efficiency in both development and runtime speed.

See CompVis/stable-diffusion#283 for an example of a similar suggestion that was wildly successful.

Unfortunately this will require adding static typing back to the library, but it will certainly be worth it in the end.

adeleke5140 · 2023-09-07T01:23:06Z

Most days (even today) I just curse and swear and want to cry. Then I sign off with 'any' or bloody casting.
Most people here hate and suffer from TS more than they care to admit, but whatever 😴

This is a sign you keep writing javascript with types instead of writing typescript. Gotta change the approach and habits. Most things causing pain are just terrible attempts to write dYnAmiC code.

TS still sucks! 🤷🏿‍♂️

Skill issue

kg-currenxie · 2023-09-07T01:40:46Z

Solidified my reasoning to use htmx over turbo. Your governance has been a shortlist of how not to treat a project and community, thanks 👍🏻

What are you talking about? HTMX don't use TS either. They only have one big .d.ts definitions file, which if you need, can contribute yourself over in the @types community github organization (DefinitelyTyped) like thousands of other libraries who didn't wanna port their whole codebase from .js

0nk3 · 2023-09-07T01:43:21Z

https://world.hey.com/dhh/turbo-8-is-dropping-typescript-70165c01

Fully recognize that TypeScript offers some people some advantages, but to my eyes, the benefits are evident in this PR. The code not only reads much better, it's also freed of the type wrangling and gymnastics needed to please the TS compiler.

We write all our client side code at 37signals now in pure JavaScript and the same too with any internal libraries. This is going to bring that in line.

All the love and appreciation to contributors who would prefer TypeScript. This is one of those debates where arguments aren't likely to move anyone's fundamental position, so I won't attempt to do that.

Something is wrong with your eyes. Reads much better? Bro youre not thinking clearly, thats for sure. Reconsider. Clearly this is a terrible decision.

mmm-zesty · 2023-09-07T01:49:56Z

Solidified my reasoning to use htmx over turbo. Your governance has been a shortlist of how not to treat a project and community, thanks 👍🏻

Lol... let's see if he'll lose an arm because you're not using Turbo.

As the vice mayor of flavortown, I can tell you that there is no seasoning or spice to make dhh's boots taste better.

mmm-zesty · 2023-09-07T01:53:05Z

Solidified my reasoning to use htmx over turbo. Your governance has been a shortlist of how not to treat a project and community, thanks 👍🏻

What are you talking about? HTMX don't use TS either. They only have one big .d.ts definitions file, which if you need, can contribute yourself over in the @types community github organization (DefinitelyTyped) like thousands of other libraries who didn't wanna port their whole codebase from .js

It is a governance thing, not an 'I am afraid of typescript' thing. You make choices with dependencies and how dhh operates now and historically makes following the rails way fraught with churn and irrational + emotional decisions.

I trust htmx or unpoly governance far far more than dhh.

linyiru · 2023-09-07T01:58:44Z

Yesterday, I was in the process of refactoring our Rails project and was considering whether to introduce TypeScript. Coincidentally, I saw this perspective today. I respect the decision; in fact, our Rails project has a lot of JavaScript (React), and we have other projects that use next.js and TypeScript.

Writing TypeScript and dealing with endless build errors do pose challenges to my productivity, but I believe this represents the quality of software delivery.

This doesn't mean the software we deliver using JavaScript is of lesser quality, but it's an opportunity for me to seriously study and learn how to do this right.

Esteban-Rocha · 2023-09-07T02:03:01Z

https://twitter.com/taylorotwell/status/1699535502054170837?s=20

I think all the people who are arguing hard for this are the ones being disrespectful, feel free to fork and move on.

BreytMN · 2023-09-07T02:04:22Z

Solidified my reasoning to use htmx over turbo. Your governance has been a shortlist of how not to treat a project and community, thanks 👍🏻

The funny thing is HTMX is the prime example of pure JavaScript joy: a single unreadable file that just God and the browser needs to care about.

Never used turbo, but any change from .ts to .js is a great change, because now no one can has the option of pretending that TypeScript is any good.

franklin-tina · 2023-09-07T02:13:55Z

Most days (even today) I just curse and swear and want to cry. Then I sign off with 'any' or bloody casting.
Most people here hate and suffer from TS more than they care to admit, but whatever 😴

This is a sign you keep writing javascript with types instead of writing typescript. Gotta change the approach and habits. Most things causing pain are just terrible attempts to write dYnAmiC code.

TS still sucks! 🤷🏿‍♂️

Skill issue

Agreed! 🥱

jpike88 · 2023-09-07T02:26:22Z

A PR with a lifespan of only 2 hours, covering ~100 files, stripping types everywhere, changing some properties to private fields or getters, adding entirely new files... this all seems perfectly thought through.

kg-currenxie · 2023-09-07T02:38:39Z

A PR with a lifespan of only 2 hours, covering ~100 files, stripping types everywhere, changing some properties to private fields or getters, adding entirely new files... this all seems perfectly thought through.

Maybe he spent exactly 2 hours reviewing it, how do you know? :) How long do you need to review a PR? Days?

Obviously they prepared, wrote a blog post etc, he knew lots about it before a PR popped up lol

riley-worthington · 2023-09-07T02:41:00Z

Nobody is talking about the removal of Prettier in this PR. Now we can get back to the glorious spirt of writing code in a way that matches our personal aesthetics, free from the dogmatic opinions of code formatters!

shimeji87 · 2023-09-07T02:47:59Z

This looks like political activism more than a thought through decision.

Atleast political activism goes toward some sort of goal. This is just stupidity.

TechStudent10 · 2023-09-07T02:57:37Z

I love TypeScript but I kinda see your point in converting to JS. Still, there should've been a heads up. For both your end users and contributers, because at the end of the day they are your audience. Your end users. Changing the entire codebase without ANY notice is absolutely preposterous.

To everyone saying "good riddance!", imagine spending hours of your time, making changes to this repo, only for the author to say "we going to JavaScript, meaning all your PRs are donezo!" It's disrespectful to everyone involved.

afcapel added 8 commits September 4, 2023 08:31

Rename .ts -> .js

8ae9925

Remove types

2932d8d

Fix flaky test

811ca23

Vertical spacing

81c37c2

Config linter

99ddebb

Apply new linting rules

6946ec4

Remove unused dependencies

6ad49d0

Annotate delegate methods

0b4c693

afcapel requested review from dhh and kevinmcconnell September 6, 2023 11:56

dhh merged commit 9f3aad7 into main Sep 6, 2023
2 checks passed

dhh deleted the untyped branch September 6, 2023 13:58

vfonic reviewed Sep 6, 2023

View reviewed changes

chrissnyder mentioned this pull request Sep 7, 2023

Add TypeScript #972

Closed

hotwired locked as too heated and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 7, 2023

		@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
		export * from "./fetch_request"
		export * from "./fetch_response"

Remove TypeScript #971

Remove TypeScript #971

Conversation

afcapel commented Sep 6, 2023 • edited

marcoroth commented Sep 6, 2023

adrienpoly commented Sep 6, 2023

rik commented Sep 6, 2023

seanpdoyle commented Sep 6, 2023 • edited

dhh commented Sep 6, 2023

vfonic left a comment • edited

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

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

pailhead Sep 6, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chigia001 Sep 6, 2023 • edited

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

pailhead Sep 6, 2023 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

julianrubisch commented Sep 6, 2023

hanayashiki commented Sep 6, 2023

JoshuaLuckers commented Sep 6, 2023

gassius commented Sep 6, 2023

anri-asaturov commented Sep 6, 2023

jhubert commented Sep 6, 2023

NSAntoine commented Sep 6, 2023

cvpcasada commented Sep 6, 2023 • edited

ReDBrother commented Sep 6, 2023 • edited

franklin-tina commented Sep 6, 2023

JoshuaLuckers commented Sep 6, 2023 • edited

junaidveeve commented Sep 6, 2023

AndKenneth commented Sep 6, 2023 • edited

aymende7 commented Sep 6, 2023

sdcoffey commented Sep 6, 2023

AndKenneth commented Sep 6, 2023

Boye95 commented Sep 6, 2023

pi0 commented Sep 6, 2023 • edited

iwdt commented Sep 6, 2023 • edited

dahchon commented Sep 6, 2023

eligrey commented Sep 6, 2023 • edited

franklin-tina commented Sep 7, 2023

franklin-tina commented Sep 7, 2023

iiAbady commented Sep 7, 2023 • edited

yellowberryHN commented Sep 7, 2023

phinnaeus commented Sep 7, 2023

adeleke5140 commented Sep 7, 2023

kg-currenxie commented Sep 7, 2023

0nk3 commented Sep 7, 2023

mmm-zesty commented Sep 7, 2023

mmm-zesty commented Sep 7, 2023

linyiru commented Sep 7, 2023

Esteban-Rocha commented Sep 7, 2023

BreytMN commented Sep 7, 2023

franklin-tina commented Sep 7, 2023

jpike88 commented Sep 7, 2023

kg-currenxie commented Sep 7, 2023 • edited

riley-worthington commented Sep 7, 2023

shimeji87 commented Sep 7, 2023 • edited

afcapel commented Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

seanpdoyle commented Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

vfonic left a comment •

edited

pailhead Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

chigia001 Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

pailhead Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

cvpcasada commented Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

ReDBrother commented Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

JoshuaLuckers commented Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

AndKenneth commented Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

pi0 commented Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

iwdt commented Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

eligrey commented Sep 6, 2023 •

edited

iiAbady commented Sep 7, 2023 •

edited

kg-currenxie commented Sep 7, 2023 •

edited

shimeji87 commented Sep 7, 2023 •

edited