Refactor extracting requested devices from the container image #1110

ArangoGutierrez · 2025-05-28T05:35:49Z

This change consolidates the logic for determining requested devices
from the container image. The logic for this has been integrated into
the image.CUDA type so that multiple implementations are not required.

We will address #1049 in a follow-up.

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

Unify device selection logic by centralizing it in a new CUDA.GetDevices method and updating all callers to use this unified API.

Introduce CUDA.GetDevices, WithSpec, and WithSwarmResource to the CUDA image builder
Refactor internal modifiers and the runtime hook to call GetDevices and updated privileged checks
Add method-based IsPrivileged and tests for it; add swarm-resource support

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 9 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
internal/modifier/gated.go	Switched to `GetDevices` and changed log level to `Debugf` for no-ops
internal/modifier/cdi.go	Updated privileged check to use new method-based API
internal/config/image/cuda_image.go	Added `GetDevices`, `IsSwarmResource`, and refactored CUDA struct
internal/config/image/privileged.go	Converted `IsPrivileged` from free function to `CUDA` method
internal/config/image/builder.go	Added `WithSpec` and `WithSwarmResource` builder options
internal/config/image/privileged_test.go	New unit tests for the `IsPrivileged` method
cmd/.../container_config.go	Migrated hook code to call `CUDA.GetDevices` and `IsPrivileged`
cmd/.../container_config_test.go	Updated hook tests to use `WithPrivileged` and `WithSwarmResource`

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (3)

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go:234

New swarm-resource logic in VisibleDevicesFromEnvVar isn’t covered by existing tests. Consider adding unit tests for IsSwarmResource, WithSwarmResource, and VisibleDevicesFromEnvVar when swarm resources are present.

if i.IsSwarmResource() {

internal/modifier/cdi.go:110

The variable container is undefined in this scope. It looks like you intended to call the new image.IsPrivileged() method or pass the correct object. Please replace container.IsPrivileged() with the appropriate call.

if cfg.AcceptEnvvarUnprivileged || container.IsPrivileged() {

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go:90

The comment refers to IsSwarm but the method is named IsSwarmResource. Update the comment to match the method name and clarify its purpose.

// IsSwarm returns whether the image is a Docker Swarm image.

coveralls · 2025-05-28T05:38:02Z

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 15464918603

Details

90 of 106 (84.91%) changed or added relevant lines in 7 files are covered.
1 unchanged line in 1 file lost coverage.
Overall coverage increased (+0.3%) to 33.619%

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
internal/config/image/cuda_image.go	27	29	93.1%
internal/modifier/cdi.go	0	5	0.0%
cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/container_config.go	10	19	52.63%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/container_config.go	1	58.54%

Totals
Change from base Build 15437228265:	0.3%
Covered Lines:	4272
Relevant Lines:	12707

💛 - Coveralls

elezar · 2025-06-02T11:52:36Z

cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/container_config.go

 	legacyImage := image.IsLegacy()

-	devices := hookConfig.getDevices(image, privileged)
+	devices := image.GetDevices(hookConfig.AcceptDeviceListAsVolumeMounts, hookConfig.AcceptEnvvarUnprivileged)


How about also passing these two options to the image constructor. So that we only call: image.VisibleDevices here instead of having to pass through the config.

I already had a rough branch from some time ago which I have pushed here: https://github.com/elezar/nvidia-container-toolkit/tree/respect-volume-mounts-gated

elezar · 2025-06-02T11:53:55Z

internal/config/image/builder.go

 	mounts         []specs.Mount
 	disableRequire bool
+
+	swarmResourceEnvvars []string


This should not be swarmResourceEnvvars, but visibleDeviceEnvvars.

elezar · 2025-06-02T11:55:16Z

internal/config/image/builder.go

 )

 type builder struct {
+	spec           *specs.Spec


I don't think that we should include a reference to the spec here -- or if we do we should remove the env and mounts below since they contain the same information -- or if they don't it is not clear which should take precedence.

elezar · 2025-06-02T11:56:39Z

internal/config/image/builder.go

+// WithPrivileged sets the privileged option for the CUDA image.
+// This is to allow testing the privileged mode of the container.
+// DO NOT USE THIS IN PRODUCTION CODE. FOR TESTING PURPOSES ONLY.
+func WithPrivileged(privileged bool) Option {


Why is this not for "Production"? Even in production we need to determine whether a container is privileged.

elezar · 2025-06-02T11:57:10Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

 	return devices
 }

+func (i CUDA) GetDevices(acceptDeviceListAsVolumeMounts, acceptEnvvarUnprivileged bool) []string {


Suggested change

func (i CUDA) GetDevices(acceptDeviceListAsVolumeMounts, acceptEnvvarUnprivileged bool) []string {

func (i CUDA) VisibleDevices() []string {

Possibly out of scope for this change, but the same logic needs to be implemented for IMEX channels and CDI devices.

elezar · 2025-06-02T11:57:37Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+func (i CUDA) GetDevices(acceptDeviceListAsVolumeMounts, acceptEnvvarUnprivileged bool) []string {
+	// If enabled, try and get the device list from volume mounts first
+	if acceptDeviceListAsVolumeMounts {
+		devices := i.VisibleDevicesFromMounts()


We may want to make VisibleDevicesFromMounts private.

elezar · 2025-06-02T11:59:47Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+	if i.IsSwarmResource() {
+		return i.DevicesFromEnvvars(i.swarmResourceEnvvars...).List()
+	}


The current behaviour in container_config is sublty different. We return the devices for the first ENVVAR that is set in the list that is set. I don't think that's what DevicesFromEnvvars does.

Could you comment on this? Looking at the latest changes this was not addressed?

elezar · 2025-06-02T12:00:39Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+	}
+
+	// Fallback to reading from the environment variable if privileges are correct
+	devices := i.VisibleDevicesFromEnvVar()


May want to make this private.

As called out, we can do this in a follow-up.

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

This PR unifies the logic for retrieving visible devices by consolidating the device detection functionality into the internal/config/image package and updating related APIs. Key changes include:

Replacing legacy device visibility functions with a unified VisibleDevices method.
Refactoring test and builder options to support the updated device logic.
Updating log levels and type conversions to align with the new implementation.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 10 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
internal/modifier/gated.go	Updated device lookup and log level change for device modification.
internal/modifier/cdi.go	Adjusted type casting for the IsPrivileged call.
internal/config/image/privileged_test.go	Added tests for the new privileged logic.
internal/config/image/privileged.go	Redesigned IsPrivileged using a CapabilitiesGetter interface.
internal/config/image/cuda_image_test.go	Updated test calls to reflect the new function naming conventions.
internal/config/image/cuda_image.go	Refactored CUDA image creation and unified visible devices extraction.
internal/config/image/builder.go	Refactored builder to embed CUDA and updated its option methods.
cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/*	Adjusted option usage and device lookup calls to integrate changes.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

internal/modifier/gated.go:40

Ensure that the renaming from VisibleDevicesFromEnvVar to VisibleDevices aligns with the updated implementation and that all calling contexts are updated accordingly.

devices := image.VisibleDevices()

internal/config/image/builder.go:56

[nitpick] Verify that embedding the CUDA struct in the builder and returning it directly does not bypass any necessary initialization previously performed explicitly.

return b.CUDA, nil

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:32:48Z

cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/container_config_test.go

 	for _, tc := range tests {
 		t.Run(tc.description, func(t *testing.T) {
-			image, _ := image.New(
+			opts := []image.Option{


Don't the results of this test ONLY depend on the CUDA image implementation? If this is the case, they should be moved to the config/image package.

OK. This specific one does depend on other code, but the one below could be moved.

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:34:45Z

cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/container_config_test.go

+					image.WithAcceptEnvvarUnprivileged(tc.acceptUnprivileged),
 				)
 				defaultConfig, _ := config.GetDefault()
 				cfg := &hookConfig{defaultConfig}


cfg is unused.

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:36:19Z

cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/hook_test.go

-	"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
-)
-
-func TestIsPrivileged(t *testing.T) {


I don't think these tests are covered in the new file privileged_test.go. We should readd them.

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:38:27Z

internal/modifier/gated.go

+	devices := image.VisibleDevices()
+	if len(devices) == 0 {
+		logger.Debugf("No modification required; no devices requested")


This is a functional change and should at the very least be a separate commit from the refactoring which should only include non-functional changes.

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:39:29Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+	visibleDevicesEnvVars []string
+	annotationPrefixes    []string


As a nit: Let's move this towards the end of the struct so that we logically separate the input (env, annotations, mounts) and settings that control behaviour.

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:41:39Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

-	legacyCudaVersion := i.env[EnvVarCudaVersion]
-	cudaRequire := i.env[EnvVarNvidiaRequireCuda]
-	return len(legacyCudaVersion) > 0 && len(cudaRequire) == 0
+	cudaVersion := i.Getenv(EnvVarCudaVersion)


What was the reason for the switch to Getenv? I understand that we may be using things inconsistently here, but let's rather address that as a follow-up to keep the refactoring diff smaller?

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:42:27Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+// IsSwarm returns whether the image is a Docker Swarm image.
+func (i CUDA) IsSwarmResource() bool {
+	return len(i.visibleDevicesEnvVars) > 0


This is not swarm specific. I don't think this function is useful.

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:42:52Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+	disable := i.Getenv(EnvVarNvidiaDisableRequire)
+	if disable != "" {


Please revert.

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:43:56Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

 }

 // DevicesFromEnvvars returns the devices requested by the image through environment variables
 func (i CUDA) DevicesFromEnvvars(envVars ...string) VisibleDevices {


Why the changes to this function? If we're going to clean it up, let's make sure that this is a separate commit or even PR.

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:47:59Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+	if i.IsSwarmResource() {
+		return i.DevicesFromEnvvars(i.visibleDevicesEnvVars...).List()
+	}


Considering how this is implemented in container_config, I believe this should be:

for _, envvar := range i.visibleDevicesEnvVars { if _, ok := i.env[envvar]; ok { return i.DevicesFromEnvvars(envvar).List() } }

(I think there was a bug in the original implementation, but I will have to confirm).

elezar · 2025-06-03T11:50:17Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

 type CUDA struct {
-	env    map[string]string
+	visibleDevicesEnvVars []string
+	annotationPrefixes    []string


This is not used, so remove this from the change set.

Suggested change

annotationPrefixes []string

I have removed both annotationPrefixes and annotations from this PR

elezar · 2025-06-04T19:17:18Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+// the NVIDIA_VISIBLE_DEVICES environment variable or any variables specified
+// in visibleDevicesEnvVars.


This is still not accurate.

elezar · 2025-06-04T19:18:29Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

 	return devices
 }

+func (i CUDA) VisibleDevices() []string {


Let's add a docstring with the intended behaviour.

elezar · 2025-06-04T19:26:10Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+	if i.isPrivileged || i.acceptEnvvarUnprivileged {
+		return devices
+	}
+


The one thing that we're missing from the initial implementation is that we're not logging the fact that we're ignoring the devices requested as envvars.

Let's add a logger to the CUDA image as well and add the logging here:

i.logger.Warningf("Ignoring devices specified in NVIDIA_VISIBLE_DEVICES in unprivileged container")

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

This PR refactors how CUDA image device requests are initialized and unified across internal packages, centralizing logic in internal/config/image.

Introduce functional options (e.g., WithLogger) to NewCUDAImageFromSpec and New builder.
Refactor IsPrivileged to use a CapabilitiesGetter interface and adapt call sites.
Extend and unify test coverage for visible device selection from env vars and mounts.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 10 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
internal/runtime/runtime_factory.go	Pass `WithLogger(logger)` into `NewCUDAImageFromSpec`
internal/modifier/cdi.go	Use options variant of `NewCUDAImageFromSpec` and updated cast
internal/config/image/privileged_test.go	Add table-driven tests for `IsPrivileged`
internal/config/image/privileged.go	Refactor `IsPrivileged` to use `CapabilitiesGetter`
internal/config/image/cuda_image_test.go	Rename constructor calls and add extensive `VisibleDevices` tests
internal/config/image/cuda_image.go	Change signature of `NewCUDAImageFromSpec`, add options & logic
internal/config/image/builder.go	Introduce `Option` funcs for builder and embed `CUDA` fields
cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/hook_config.go	Add nil-check in `getSwarmResourceEnvvars`
cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/container_config_test.go	Update test to pass new builder options
cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/container_config.go	Refactor hook to use new image API and remove duplicated logic

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go:293

[nitpick] Consider creating an issue or tracking ticket for this TODO or implementing the merge to avoid stale TODOs.

// TODO: This should be merged with getDevicesFromMounts used in the NVIDIA Container Runtime

cmd/nvidia-container-runtime-hook/container_config_test.go:479

The error return from image.New is ignored; consider using require.NoError(t, err) to catch instantiation failures in tests.

image, _ := image.New(

internal/config/image/privileged.go

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

elezar · 2025-06-05T09:31:48Z

internal/config/image/builder.go

+// WithPreferredVisibleDevicesEnvVars sets the visible devices environment variables.
+// For each envvar passed:
+//   - Split on commas
+//   - Trim spaces and ignore empty strings
+//   - Concatenate all of this


This comment is not accurate.

elezar · 2025-06-05T09:32:00Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+
 	env    map[string]string
 	mounts []specs.Mount
+


Suggested change

elezar · 2025-06-05T09:33:12Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+	specOpts := []Option{
 		WithEnv(env),
 		WithMounts(spec.Mounts),
-	)
+		WithPrivileged(IsPrivileged((*OCISpec)(spec))),
+	}
+
+	return New(append(opts, specOpts...)...)


One thing about this behaviour is that it ASSUMES that the env and mounts from the spec are preferred. It would be good to add a test for this -- although that's not a blocker for this PR.

it does, but then the return appends the opts, so if the caller of NewCUDAImageFromSpec set's the WithPreferred... that will be present during the construction of the image

I'm speaking specifically of env and mounts, not preferredVisibleDevicesEnvVars. The point of a test is to ensure that LATER modifications don't change behaviour.

TODO: Add unit test for NewCUDAImageFromSpec

elezar · 2025-06-05T09:34:54Z

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go

+	}
+
+	// We log a warning if we are ignoring the environment variable requests.
+	i.logger.Warningf("Ignoring devices specified in NVIDIA_VISIBLE_DEVICES in unprivileged container")


technically this could be checking other envvars. I'm ok to leave this as is though.

You are right, because if the previous check is not fulfilled, we will land here, and if this is a SWARM use case for example we would also be ignoring preferredVisibleDeviceEnvVars

something like

if len(i.preferredVisibleDeviceEnvVars) > 0 { i.logger.Warningf("Ignoring devices specified in %v in unprivileged container", i.preferredVisibleDeviceEnvVars) } else { i.logger.Warningf("Ignoring devices specified in NVIDIA_VISIBLE_DEVICES in unprivileged container") }

That does not match the logic that we use to determine which envvars to use.

We need:

var ignoredEnvVars []string for _, envVar := range i.preferredVisibleDeviceEnvVars { if i.HasEnvvar(envVar) { ignoredEnvVars = append(ignoredEnvVars, envVar) } } if len(ignoredEnvVars) == 0 { ignoredEnvVars = append(ignoredEnvVars, EnvVarNvidiaVisibleDevices) } // We log a warning if we are ignoring the environment variable requests. i.logger.Warningf("Ignoring devices requested by environment variable(s) in unprivileged container: %v", strings.Join(ignoredEnvVars, ", "))

(strictly speaking we should factor this into a function and use that from VisibleDevicesFromEnvVar, but I don't want to waste cycles on this). Let's do this as a follow-up. Please create an issue to track.

I'll create an issue once we merge the PR, so I can point to places in the code in the issue

how about

// visibleEnvVars returns the environment variables that are used to determine device visibility. // It returns the preferred environment variables that are set, or NVIDIA_VISIBLE_DEVICES if none are set. func (i CUDA) visibleEnvVars() []string { var envVars []string for _, envVar := range i.preferredVisibleDeviceEnvVars { if i.HasEnvvar(envVar) { envVars = append(envVars, envVar) } } if len(envVars) == 0 { envVars = append(envVars, EnvVarNvidiaVisibleDevices) } return envVars }

(I have tested it and it works for both the logging use case and the VisibleDevicesFromEnvVar use case

TODO: add a patch with #1110 (comment)

elezar · 2025-06-05T10:11:21Z

internal/config/image/builder.go

 	}
 }
+
+// WithPreferredVisibleDevicesEnvVars sets the visible devices environment variables.


Suggested change

// WithPreferredVisibleDevicesEnvVars sets the visible devices environment variables.

// WithPreferredVisibleDevicesEnvVars sets the environment variables that should take precendence over the default NVIDIA_VISIBLE_DEVICES.

// If any of these are present in the image, they are used to determine which devices were requested.

This change consolidates the logic for determining requested devices from the container image. The logic for this has been integrated into the image.CUDA type so that multiple implementations are not required. Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Arango Gutierrez <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Evan Lezar <[email protected]>

elezar

Let's get this in.

ArangoGutierrez requested review from Copilot and elezar May 28, 2025 05:35

ArangoGutierrez self-assigned this May 28, 2025

Copilot AI reviewed May 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the i/1049 branch from 5e0e78b to b5bea48 Compare May 28, 2025 05:46

ArangoGutierrez added this to the v1.18.0 milestone Jun 2, 2025

elezar reviewed Jun 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the i/1049 branch from b5bea48 to 02a486e Compare June 3, 2025 09:25

ArangoGutierrez requested review from Copilot and elezar June 3, 2025 09:25

Copilot AI reviewed Jun 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

elezar reviewed Jun 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

elezar reviewed Jun 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

elezar force-pushed the i/1049 branch 2 times, most recently from d280029 to 95b458f Compare June 4, 2025 21:19

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the i/1049 branch 2 times, most recently from c563b87 to 924913f Compare June 5, 2025 08:30

ArangoGutierrez requested review from Copilot and elezar June 5, 2025 08:30

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the i/1049 branch from 924913f to 4d1889c Compare June 5, 2025 08:30

Copilot AI reviewed Jun 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

internal/config/image/privileged.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the i/1049 branch from 4d1889c to 213ae26 Compare June 5, 2025 08:39

elezar changed the title ~~Unify GetDevices logic at internal/config/image~~ Refactor extracting requested devices from the container image Jun 5, 2025

elezar reviewed Jun 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

internal/config/image/cuda_image.go Outdated

env map[string]string

mounts []specs.Mount

Copy link

Member

elezar Jun 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change

elezar reviewed Jun 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the i/1049 branch from 213ae26 to e145caa Compare June 5, 2025 09:48

ArangoGutierrez requested a review from elezar June 5, 2025 09:49

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the i/1049 branch from e145caa to 41359b8 Compare June 5, 2025 09:57

elezar reviewed Jun 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the i/1049 branch 2 times, most recently from 8fcd35a to fff5f82 Compare June 5, 2025 10:19

elezar force-pushed the i/1049 branch from fff5f82 to dede03f Compare June 5, 2025 10:38

elezar approved these changes Jun 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

elezar merged commit b55255e into NVIDIA:main Jun 5, 2025
16 checks passed

This was referenced Jun 5, 2025

BUGFIX: modifier: respect GPU volume-mount device requests #1130

Merged

Make CDI device requests consistent with other methods #1132

Merged

how to get Vulkan working on Docker swarm #1047

Open

	func (i CUDA) GetDevices(acceptDeviceListAsVolumeMounts, acceptEnvvarUnprivileged bool) []string {
	func (i CUDA) VisibleDevices() []string {

		disable := i.Getenv(EnvVarNvidiaDisableRequire)
		if disable != "" {

		// the NVIDIA_VISIBLE_DEVICES environment variable or any variables specified
		// in visibleDevicesEnvVars.

	// WithPreferredVisibleDevicesEnvVars sets the visible devices environment variables.
	// WithPreferredVisibleDevicesEnvVars sets the environment variables that should take precendence over the default NVIDIA_VISIBLE_DEVICES.
	// If any of these are present in the image, they are used to determine which devices were requested.

Refactor extracting requested devices from the container image #1110

Refactor extracting requested devices from the container image #1110

Uh oh!

Conversation

ArangoGutierrez commented May 28, 2025 • edited by elezar Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Reviewed Changes

Uh oh!

coveralls commented May 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 15464918603

Details

💛 - Coveralls

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Reviewed Changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ArangoGutierrez commented May 28, 2025 •

edited by elezar

Loading

coveralls commented May 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

elezar Jun 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading