[no-relnote] Refactor cmd/installer/container/containerd unit test #1293

ArangoGutierrez · 2025-09-08T11:43:55Z

No description provided.

coveralls · 2025-09-08T11:46:15Z

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 17802380714

Details

0 of 1 (0.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
Overall coverage increased (+0.8%) to 36.711%

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/containerd.go	0	1	0.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 17609015556:	0.8%
Covered Lines:	4800
Relevant Lines:	13075

💛 - Coveralls

containerd.test

elezar · 2025-09-09T09:55:35Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v2_test.go

+
+// TestUpdateV2Config_NoConfigFile tests the scenario when there is no
+// containerd config file present
+func TestUpdateV2Config_NoConfigFile(t *testing.T) {


As discussed:

offline in our call yesterday

Implement Drop-In Lifecycle Support for Containerd and Crio #1272 (comment)

https://github.com/NVIDIA/nvidia-container-toolkit/pull/1280/files#diff-743eab44a71e6e333fef0be742b20bcdb7188341b5b8e6542bc94ec64704de35R35

I think these tests are testing the wrong thing. Although we may want to consider updating the tests for Update config, what we really want is tests to ensure the correct behaviour of the Setup->Cleanup cycle.

Would adapting the proposed implementation from the last two points above be feasible?

Sure, thanks for the clarification. I now understand that I got the wrong idea from our conversation. I'll work on the proposed implementation

I have implemented the tests following the structure of the comment #1272 (comment) , PTAL

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

This PR refactors the containerd unit tests to follow a comprehensive Setup->Cleanup lifecycle testing pattern. It replaces granular unit tests with integration-style tests that verify the complete workflow of configuring and then cleaning up NVIDIA container runtime configurations.

Replaces existing granular unit tests with comprehensive Setup->Cleanup lifecycle tests
Adds a new CRI-O test file with complete test coverage for both config and hook modes
Updates copyright year in config_v2_test.go from 2021 to 2025

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go	New comprehensive test file covering CRI-O Setup->Cleanup lifecycle for both config and hook modes
cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/containerd.go	Fixed typo: `defaultRuntmeType` to `defaultRuntimeType`
cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v2_test.go	Refactored from granular unit tests to comprehensive Setup->Cleanup lifecycle tests; updated copyright year
cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v1_test.go	Added missing constants that were removed from config_v2_test.go

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/containerd.go:1

Line 38 contains a typo defaultRuntmeType which should be defaultRuntimeType. This appears to be dead code since line 39 declares the correct constant name.

/**

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/containerd.go:1

Line 65 references the misspelled constant defaultRuntmeType which should be defaultRuntimeType. This creates inconsistency and potential runtime issues.

/**

elezar · 2025-09-09T13:23:17Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v2_test.go

+				configPath := filepath.Join(testRoot, "etc/containerd/config.toml")
+				require.NoError(t, os.MkdirAll(filepath.Dir(configPath), 0755))
+
+				cfg, err := containerd.New(


Question: Would this be cleaner to read if we were using a raw string?

Moved to raw string

As was the case for checking the OUTPUT, I think there was a misunderstanding here. I mean that we define the CONTENT of the input file explicitly and no as any specific type. For example:

diff --git a/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go b/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go index 5847d86f..daa5d96f 100644 --- a/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go +++ b/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go @@ -92,29 +92,24 @@ func TestContainerdConfigLifecycle(t *testing.T) { configPath := filepath.Join(testRoot, "etc/containerd/config.toml") require.NoError(t, os.MkdirAll(filepath.Dir(configPath), 0755)) - cfg, err := containerd.New( - containerd.WithConfigSource(toml.FromMap(map[string]interface{}{ - "version": int64(2), - "plugins": map[string]interface{}{ - "io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri": map[string]interface{}{ - "containerd": map[string]interface{}{ - "default_runtime_name": "runc", - "runtimes": map[string]interface{}{ - "runc": map[string]interface{}{ - "runtime_type": "io.containerd.runc.v2", - "options": map[string]interface{}{ - "BinaryName": "/usr/bin/runc", - }, - }, - }, - }, - }, - }, - })), - ) - require.NoError(t, err) - _, err = cfg.Save(configPath) - require.NoError(t, err) + contents := `version = 2 + + [plugins] + + [plugins."io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri"] + + [plugins."io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri".containerd] + default_runtime_name = "runc" + [plugins."io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri".containerd.runtimes] + + [plugins."io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri".containerd.runtimes.runc] + runtime_type = "io.containerd.runc.v2" + + [plugins."io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri".containerd.runtimes.nvidia.options] + BinaryName = "/usr/bin/runc" + ` + + require.NoError(t, os.WriteFile(configPath, []byte(contents), 0755)) return nil }, assertSetupPostConditions: func(t *testing.T, testRoot string) error {

elezar · 2025-09-10T09:16:05Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v2_test.go

-			runtimeName:                "NAME",
-			expectedDefaultRuntimeName: "NAME",
-		},
+// TestSetupCleanup tests the complete Setup->Cleanup lifecycle following Evan Lezar's pattern


Let's rather give the function a more expressive name than relying on a comment in this case. (This should only be required if we feel TestSetupCleanup is not sufficient).

test func renamed

elezar · 2025-09-10T09:21:18Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v2_test.go

+				// Verify that nvidia runtimes were removed
+				if _, err := os.Stat(filepath.Join(testRoot, "etc/containerd/config.toml")); err == nil {
+					verifyRuntimesAbsent(t, filepath.Join(testRoot, "etc/containerd/config.toml"),
+						"nvidia", "nvidia-cdi", "nvidia-legacy")
+				}


Should we not be checking for AN EMPTY CONFIG here? (actually, I believe the expected behaviour is that the config file is deleted).

~~We now use NoFileExist check~~

EDIT: the behaviour WILL be to delete the file, but currently it is not , see https://github.com/NVIDIA/nvidia-container-toolkit/blob/main/pkg/config/engine/containerd/config.go#L127 , the logic to delete the file is introduced on the DropIns PR at https://github.com/NVIDIA/nvidia-container-toolkit/pull/1272/files#diff-59fededabdcd1a2abf2309e2d74e17b98c379747eb6fa2bdff7a24edffab8c14R129

That is strange. We should be deleting the file if -- after removing nvidia runtimes -- there is only a version entry in the config. (We remove the version entry here and then remove the output file when writing the raw toml).

This is even more reason to CHECK RAW STRINGS so that we know the complete state of the config file we generate.

OK. I have made the following changes to the test:

diff --git a/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go b/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go index 5847d86f..03bf60d9 100644 --- a/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go +++ b/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go @@ -68,11 +68,7 @@ func TestContainerdConfigLifecycle(t *testing.T) { assertCleanupPostConditions: func(t *testing.T, testRoot string) error { configPath := filepath.Join(testRoot, "etc/containerd/config.toml") - if _, err := os.Stat(configPath); err == nil { - // TODO(@ArangoGutierrez): When moving to DropIn files, we should verify that the config file is deleted after cleanup. - // For now, we just verify that the runtimes are absent. - verifyRuntimesAbsent(t, configPath, "nvidia", "nvidia-cdi", "nvidia-legacy") - } + require.NoFileExists(t, configPath) return nil }, },

(Note that I check file not exists)

and the test still passes. Could you please elaborate on what you based the statement:

EDIT: the behaviour WILL be to delete the file, but currently it is not , see https://github.com/NVIDIA/nvidia-container-toolkit/blob/main/pkg/config/engine/containerd/config.go#L127 , the logic to delete the file is introduced on the DropIns PR at https://github.com/NVIDIA/nvidia-container-toolkit/pull/1272/files#diff-59fededabdcd1a2abf2309e2d74e17b98c379747eb6fa2bdff7a24edffab8c14R129

on?

Did you run those changes on a Mac or a Linux machine?
I had it like you showed before, and it passed on my Mac, but then it failed on the GitHub Runner (Linux)

It could be that on the github runner we're generating the config from containerd config dump. This should be avoided unless we explicitly "mock" this command.

Agree, so given this, do you think we should have that as a follow-up, and on this PR assume the file is not empty?

No. We should check the file contents now. Note that if we make the following change:

diff --git a/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go b/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go index 5847d86f..62dc4bb4 100644 --- a/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go +++ b/cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go @@ -52,11 +52,12 @@ func TestContainerdConfigLifecycle(t *testing.T) { description: "v2: top-level config does not exist", configVersion: 2, containerOptions: container.Options{ - Config: "{{ .testRoot }}/etc/containerd/config.toml", - RuntimeName: "nvidia", - RuntimeDir: "/usr/bin", - SetAsDefault: false, - RestartMode: "none", + Config: "{{ .testRoot }}/etc/containerd/config.toml", + RuntimeName: "nvidia", + RuntimeDir: "/usr/bin", + SetAsDefault: false, + RestartMode: "none", + ExecutablePath: "not-containerd", }, options: Options{}, assertSetupPostConditions: func(t *testing.T, testRoot string) error {

then we would force the command-line source to fail since not-containerd will not exist.

The alternative is to get #1251 in for more explicit control.

ok, I have added ExecutablePath and it works now

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v2_test.go

elezar · 2025-09-10T09:26:12Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v2_test.go

+					containerd.WithConfigSource(toml.FromFile(configPath)),
+				)
+				require.NoError(t, err)
+				c := cfg.(*containerd.Config)


THis leaks implementation details. As mentioned in our discussion, these tests were never properly updated when we migrated the logic to a central package for use from the nvidia-ctk runtime configure command. We should check the content of the files that we're interested in.

elezar · 2025-09-10T09:28:42Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v2_test.go

+		t.Run(tc.description, func(t *testing.T) {
+			// Update any paths as required
+			testRoot := t.TempDir()
+			tc.containerOptions.Config = strings.ReplaceAll(tc.containerOptions.Config, "{{ .testRoot }}", testRoot)


Out of scope for this PR, but we could consider JSON marshalling, replacing the string, and then unmarshalling again. For a single field this is fine though.

TODO @ArangoGutierrez, let's add JSON marshaling

elezar · 2025-09-10T09:39:57Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v1_test.go

I'm happy to only focus on the v2 tests as part of this PR, but we could consider also also including v1 tests there. (If we move to testing the Setup->Cleanup cycle, then we don't need to distinguish between v1 and v2 tests.

Merged v1 and v2 now that we test focusing on the lifecycle

elezar · 2025-09-10T09:41:27Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go

+				// Check non-runtime settings
+				require.Equal(t, "/usr/libexec/crio/conmon", c.GetPath([]string{"crio", "runtime", "conmon"}))
+				require.Equal(t, true, c.GetPath([]string{"crio", "runtime", "selinux"}))
+				require.Equal(t, "/etc/cni/net.d/", c.GetPath([]string{"crio", "network", "network_dir"}))


Let's just compare raw strings.

Moved to raw string

Did you perhaps forget to push this change? Where did you change to checking raw strings? To be clear, what I mean by "raw strings" is that the test will contain a raw (i.e. backtick) string containig the expected contents of the config file in the various steps. We already do this for the CDI specs we generated, for example.

test now with raw strings

elezar · 2025-09-10T09:42:24Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go

+}
+
+// TestSetupCleanupHookMode tests the Setup->Cleanup lifecycle for hook mode
+func TestSetupCleanupHookMode(t *testing.T) {


Is there a reason that this needs to be a separate function?

merged into the main test func

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v2_test.go

elezar · 2025-09-17T07:16:51Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go

+          runtime_type = "io.containerd.runc.v2"
+
+          [plugins."io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri".containerd.runtimes.runc.options]
+            BinaryName = "/usr/bin/runc"


Once again, we're actually interested in the runtime options from the default_runtime_name, runc, and crun.

elezar · 2025-09-17T07:17:52Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go

+[plugins]
+  [plugins."io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri"]
+    [plugins."io.containerd.grpc.v1.cri".containerd]
+      # Note: No default_runtime_name specified


Suggested change

# Note: No default_runtime_name specified

Nit: we can remove this comment in the file since we already have a code comment above.

elezar · 2025-09-17T07:18:25Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go

+				// Verify that default_runtime_name WAS added
+				require.Contains(t, string(actual), `default_runtime_name = "nvidia"`)


We are already doing a FULL STRING MATCH on the config. Why is this required?

Suggested change

// Verify that default_runtime_name WAS added

require.Contains(t, string(actual), `default_runtime_name = "nvidia"`)

elezar · 2025-09-17T07:19:04Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go

+				// Verify that default_runtime_name was removed to restore original state
+				require.NotContains(t, string(actual), "default_runtime_name")
+				require.NotContains(t, string(actual), "nvidia")


We are already doing a full string match. Why is this required?

Suggested change

// Verify that default_runtime_name was removed to restore original state

require.NotContains(t, string(actual), "default_runtime_name")

require.NotContains(t, string(actual), "nvidia")

// Verify that default_runtime_name was removed to restore original state

require.NotContains(t, string(actual), "default_runtime_name")

require.NotContains(t, string(actual), "nvidia")

elezar · 2025-09-17T07:20:49Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go

+
+	testCases := []struct {
+		description                 string
+		configVersion               int  // 0 for auto-detect, 1 for v1, 2 for v2


What about v3?

elezar · 2025-09-17T07:22:30Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go

+	testCases := []struct {
+		description                 string
+		configVersion               int  // 0 for auto-detect, 1 for v1, 2 for v2
+		useLegacyConfig             bool // for v1 legacy behavior


Do we need an additional setting in this struct if we're just setting options.useLegacyConfig with this? We only need this for the deprecated v1 config structure, so having it a top-level test var seems out of place.

elezar · 2025-09-17T07:24:26Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go

+			if tc.options.runtimeType == "" {
+				tc.options.runtimeType = "io.containerd.runc.v2"
+			}


Question: Do we have any tests where we actually set this?

Also as a nit: move the setup to before we actually start running things.

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

elezar · 2025-09-17T13:02:09Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go

+				actual, err := os.ReadFile(configPath)
+				require.NoError(t, err)
+
+				expected := `


Do we really insert a newline at the start of the file?

Yes, if not the test fails with Error: Not equal:

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go

elezar · 2025-09-17T13:14:30Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go

+				// Parse both JSONs to compare them semantically (ignoring formatting differences)
+				var expectedJSON, actualJSON interface{}
+				require.NoError(t, json.Unmarshal([]byte(expected), &expectedJSON))
+				require.NoError(t, json.Unmarshal(actual, &actualJSON))
+				require.Equal(t, expectedJSON, actualJSON)


This is NOT required. We're already checking for exactly matching contents. Is there a reason to expect that these would unmarshal differently?

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go

elezar · 2025-09-17T13:18:18Z

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go

+			} else if tc.options.configMode == "hook" {
+				// Ensure hooks directory exists for hook mode
+				hooksDir := tc.options.hooksDir
+				require.NoError(t, os.MkdirAll(hooksDir, 0755))
+			}


Why is this not just implemented in prepareEnvironment? Also, we explicitly create the hook dir as part of the installation, so this should not be reqiured in any case.

Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Arango Gutierrez <[email protected]>

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 5 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/containerd.go:1

Variable name contains a typo: 'defaultRuntmeType' should be 'defaultRuntimeType'. This appears to be the old misspelled constant being replaced.

/**

Signed-off-by: Evan Lezar <[email protected]>

ArangoGutierrez requested review from Copilot and elezar September 8, 2025 11:43

ArangoGutierrez self-assigned this Sep 8, 2025

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the update_ctk_unit_test branch from dad6557 to b5105a9 Compare September 8, 2025 13:32

ArangoGutierrez requested a review from Copilot September 8, 2025 14:48

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the update_ctk_unit_test branch from 76d8c46 to 19c7b36 Compare September 9, 2025 09:31

ArangoGutierrez marked this pull request as ready for review September 9, 2025 09:31

elezar reviewed Sep 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

containerd.test Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

elezar reviewed Sep 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the update_ctk_unit_test branch 3 times, most recently from d3cc519 to 5ba3f1f Compare September 9, 2025 12:20

ArangoGutierrez mentioned this pull request Sep 9, 2025

Implement Drop-In Lifecycle Support for Containerd and Crio #1272

Closed

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the update_ctk_unit_test branch 3 times, most recently from 02f2ba4 to cae823b Compare September 9, 2025 12:34

ArangoGutierrez requested review from Copilot and elezar September 9, 2025 13:25

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the update_ctk_unit_test branch from cae823b to 8068032 Compare September 9, 2025 13:36

ArangoGutierrez requested a review from Copilot September 9, 2025 13:36

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

elezar reviewed Sep 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

elezar reviewed Sep 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_v2_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the update_ctk_unit_test branch 3 times, most recently from c05a1f9 to b298d61 Compare September 16, 2025 11:53

elezar reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the update_ctk_unit_test branch from 08d3422 to 92370c6 Compare September 17, 2025 10:48

ArangoGutierrez requested review from Copilot and elezar September 17, 2025 10:48

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the update_ctk_unit_test branch from 92370c6 to 55cf902 Compare September 17, 2025 11:56

ArangoGutierrez requested a review from Copilot September 17, 2025 11:56

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

elezar reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/containerd/config_test.go Show resolved Hide resolved

elezar reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

elezar reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

elezar reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

elezar reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

cmd/nvidia-ctk-installer/container/runtime/crio/config_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

elezar reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

[no-relnote] Refactor cmd/installer/container/containerd unit test

46c5d59

Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Arango Gutierrez <[email protected]>

ArangoGutierrez force-pushed the update_ctk_unit_test branch from 55cf902 to 46c5d59 Compare September 17, 2025 14:20

ArangoGutierrez requested review from Copilot and elezar September 17, 2025 14:23

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

[no-relnote] Don't use fmt.Sprintf

4403974

Signed-off-by: Evan Lezar <[email protected]>

elezar approved these changes Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

elezar merged commit 470b841 into NVIDIA:main Sep 17, 2025
13 checks passed

		// Verify that default_runtime_name WAS added
		require.Contains(t, string(actual), `default_runtime_name = "nvidia"`)

[no-relnote] Refactor cmd/installer/container/containerd unit test #1293

[no-relnote] Refactor cmd/installer/container/containerd unit test #1293

Uh oh!

Conversation

ArangoGutierrez commented Sep 8, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Sep 8, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 17802380714

Details

💛 - Coveralls

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

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!

This comment was marked as outdated.

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Reviewed Changes

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!

ArangoGutierrez Sep 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

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!

coveralls commented Sep 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

ArangoGutierrez Sep 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading