ft: Instantiate Specfile from strings or file-like objects #458

mynk8 · 2025-03-12T18:33:30Z

TODO:

Write new tests or update the old ones to cover new functionality.
Update doc-strings where appropriate.
Update or write new documentation.

Fixes #206
Fixes #248

RELEASE NOTES BEGIN

Added support for creating Specfile instances from file objects and strings.

RELEASE NOTES END

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-03-12T18:36:30Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/b83530e4734b495cbbbb736757de6620

❌ pre-commit FAILURE in 1m 56s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 07s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 01s

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-03-12T18:51:52Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/d3c72d139e844076807086e50e1a73b2

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 00s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 03s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 58s

nforro · 2025-03-14T10:15:27Z

Thank you for the contribution!
However, I think this problem could be handled in a more elegant way, without using temporary files, and together with #206. The idea is to replace the internal Specfile._path attribute with a file-like object that could be either passed directly to the constructor or instantiated from a path using open() or from a string using StringIO.
The implementation would simply replace instances of Specfile._path.read_text() with something like Specfile._stream.read() and instances of Specfile._path.write_text() with something like Specfile._stream.write() if the file-like object is writable. It would also need to handle seeking, truncating, flushing etc. accordingly.

mynk8 · 2025-03-14T14:17:43Z

I tried implementing as described and converted even the path to a fileobject (self._stream = self._path.open("r+"))
But two tests were failing:

FAILED tests/integration/test_specfile.py::test_copy - TypeError: cannot pickle 'TextIOWrapper' instances
FAILED tests/integration/test_specfile.py::test_parse_if_necessary - TypeError: cannot pickle 'TextIOWrapper' instances

and this will fail for objects instantiated from string and open() as well. Not really sure how to handle this.

nforro · 2025-03-14T16:09:32Z

Right, that will require doing something similar to what is done in SpecParser:

specfile/specfile/spec_parser.py

Lines 81 to 90 in 01f6a7c

    
           def __deepcopy__(self, memo: Dict[int, Any]) -> "SpecParser": 
        
               result = self.__class__.__new__(self.__class__) 
        
               memo[self.id()] = result 
        
               for k, v in self.__dict__.items(): 
        
                   if k in ["spec", "tainted"]: 
        
                       continue 
        
                   setattr(result, k, copy.deepcopy(v, memo)) 
        
               result.spec = None 
        
               result.tainted = False 
        
               return result

The _stream attribute will have to be skipped when deepcopying a Specfile instance, but the question is what should the copy get. For Specfile instantiated from a path it could be calling open() again on the same path, for Specfile instantiated from a string it could be creating a new StringIO instance and supplying it with the content of the original StringIO. For Specfile instantiated with a file-like object perhaps we could just disable deepcopying.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-03-14T20:06:54Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/7f8ac824bda0425aae3a49deca2fea6f

❌ pre-commit FAILURE in 1m 57s
❌ specfile-tests-rpm-deps FAILURE in 1m 05s
❌ specfile-tests-pip-deps FAILURE in 58s

mynk8 · 2025-03-14T20:09:05Z

The tests are passing now. Currently:

Return a new StringIO instance for the ones instantiated from it.
Return a copy for the ones instantiated from path. They are still file-like objects from open().
Ignore and return None for file-like objects without path.

will write new tests for them.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-03-14T20:40:49Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/776c81427af644f5906c1d9d36901524

❌ pre-commit FAILURE in 1m 59s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 00s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 59s

nforro

Nice, this looks much better.

specfile/specfile.py

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-03-15T17:57:56Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/219cd7e7d7284a9692a0042cc7473bf3

❌ pre-commit FAILURE in 1m 54s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 00s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 56s

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-03-15T18:11:33Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/8218877e3c9446cc9abf50139a5661b8

❌ pre-commit FAILURE in 1m 55s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 04s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 00s

mynk8 · 2025-03-15T18:14:50Z

I had a doubt in the reload function:

    def reload(self) -> None:
        """Reloads the spec file content."""
        self._lines, self._trailing_newline = self._read_lines(self._file)

Why we are not parsing again here ? I think this causes the specfile object to be inconsistent after a reload.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-03-15T18:34:03Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/0fb171b73b9b45afbfa6d30e7f73ab50

❌ pre-commit FAILURE in 1m 57s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 01s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 59s

nforro · 2025-03-15T19:06:55Z

Why we are not parsing again here ? I think this causes the specfile object to be inconsistent after a reload.

By parsing do you mean calling self._parser.parse()? Because it would be unnecessary, it is called before any data that depend on the result of RPM parsing are accessed.

mynk8 · 2025-03-15T19:09:27Z

Why we are not parsing again here ? I think this causes the specfile object to be inconsistent after a reload.

By parsing do you mean calling self._parser.parse()? Because it would be unnecessary, it is called before any data that depend on the result of RPM parsing are accessed.

yes, I was talking about that. It's clear now

specfile/specfile.py

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-03-16T17:50:48Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/80969db5017b4769bc36a832a6ae0fe3

❌ pre-commit FAILURE in 1m 56s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 02s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 59s

specfile/constants.py

nforro

It's starting to look really good, thanks!
Could you please squash the commits into one (or a couple if you feel it's necessary)?
It would also be nice to check why the source-git tests in packit integration test suite are failing and if it is related to these changes.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-03-17T00:30:17Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/7d9e37e981f34f0fb04f5e8cfbea14b2

❌ pre-commit FAILURE in 1m 58s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 02s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 01s

mynk8 · 2025-03-17T01:23:02Z

FAILED integration/test_source_git.py::test_basic_local_update_without_patching
FAILED integration/test_source_git.py::test_basic_local_update_empty_patch[None]
FAILED integration/test_source_git.py::test_basic_local_update_empty_patch[0.1.0]
FAILED integration/test_source_git.py::test_basic_local_update_empty_patch[0.1*]
FAILED integration/test_source_git.py::test_basic_local_update_empty_patch[0.*]
FAILED integration/test_source_git.py::test_basic_local_update_patch_content
FAILED integration/test_source_git.py::test_basic_local_update_patch_content_with_metadata
FAILED integration/test_source_git.py::test_basic_local_update_patch_content_with_metadata_and_patch_ignored
FAILED integration/test_source_git.py::test_basic_local_update_patch_content_with_downstream_patch
FAILED integration/test_source_git_status.py::test_source_git_status_synced[check_ready_api_dg_first]
FAILED integration/test_source_git_status.py::test_source_git_status_synced[check_ready_api_sg_first]
FAILED integration/test_source_git_status.py::test_source_git_status_dist_git_ahead[check_ready_api_dg_first]
FAILED integration/test_source_git_status.py::test_source_git_status_dist_git_ahead[check_ready_api_sg_first]
FAILED integration/test_source_git_status.py::test_source_git_status_source_git_ahead[check_ready_api_dg_first]
FAILED integration/test_source_git_status.py::test_source_git_status_source_git_ahead[check_ready_api_sg_first]
FAILED integration/test_source_git_status.py::test_source_git_status_history_diverges[check_ready_api_dg_first]
FAILED integration/test_source_git_status.py::test_source_git_status_history_diverges[check_ready_api_sg_first]
FAILED integration/test_upstream.py::test_fix_spec_persists - AssertionError:...

These are the failing tests, I think the last one might have something to do with this PR. I am having trouble squashing commits from my side they seem to be getting duplicated.

nforro · 2025-03-17T18:13:52Z

These are the failing tests, I think the last one might have something to do with this PR

No, all of the failures are related to this PR. I haven't check all of them but they all most likely fail for the same reason - the spec file is replaced with a different file, so the _file object represents a deleted file and reload() doesn't read contents of the new file. I think that's fine, but it will be necessary to add a new method, called for example reopen(), that will reopen the path, but do nothing on other types of file-like objects.

That brings me to another step that will be necessary and that's adding tests covering every new feature and changed behavior, including this one.

nforro · 2025-03-17T18:17:04Z

I am having trouble squashing commits from my side they seem to be getting duplicated.

https://medium.com/@slamflipstrom/a-beginners-guide-to-squashing-commits-with-git-rebase-8185cf6e62ec

nforro · 2025-03-17T18:28:07Z

I think that's fine, but it will be necessary to add a new method, called for example reopen(), that will reopen the path, but do nothing on other types of file-like objects.

Actually, thinking about it, it should rather be done in reload(), in order not to change the behavior for existing users.

mynk8 · 2025-03-17T18:53:47Z

I am having trouble squashing commits from my side they seem to be getting duplicated.

https://medium.com/@slamflipstrom/a-beginners-guide-to-squashing-commits-with-git-rebase-8185cf6e62ec

Got it done eventually i was avoiding force push and rewriting the commits.
Yes, thinking about it, the issue seems to be with reload. There was an assertion error in a test, where it still had the old version string.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-03-17T18:54:00Z

Build failed.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/882e7851b5ec416c9a968929e73a2994

❌ pre-commit FAILURE in 1m 59s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 05s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 04s

mynk8 · 2025-03-17T18:57:01Z

These are the failing tests, I think the last one might have something to do with this PR

No, all of the failures are related to this PR. I haven't check all of them but they all most likely fail for the same reason - the spec file is replaced with a different file, so the _file object represents a deleted file and reload() doesn't read contents of the new file. I think that's fine, but it will be necessary to add a new method, called for example reopen(), that will reopen the path, but do nothing on other types of file-like objects.

That brings me to another step that will be necessary and that's adding tests covering every new feature and changed behavior, including this one.

I think the current test cases should be reused, but with different input types, such as a raw string, a file-based input, and a file without a 'name' attribute, it might be overkill though

nforro · 2025-04-02T12:48:45Z

specfile/types.py

+
+
+try:
+    from typing import TypedDict
+except ImportError:
+    from typing_extensions import TypedDict
+
+EncodingArgs = TypedDict("EncodingArgs", {"encoding": str, "errors": str})


Hm, black doesn't seem to care, but I think it would make more sense to either move the double newline:

Suggested change

try:

from typing import TypedDict

except ImportError:

from typing_extensions import TypedDict

EncodingArgs = TypedDict("EncodingArgs", {"encoding": str, "errors": str})

try:

from typing import TypedDict

except ImportError:

from typing_extensions import TypedDict

EncodingArgs = TypedDict("EncodingArgs", {"encoding": str, "errors": str})

or remove it:

Suggested change

try:

from typing import TypedDict

except ImportError:

from typing_extensions import TypedDict

EncodingArgs = TypedDict("EncodingArgs", {"encoding": str, "errors": str})

try:

from typing import TypedDict

except ImportError:

from typing_extensions import TypedDict

EncodingArgs = TypedDict("EncodingArgs", {"encoding": str, "errors": str})

This shows as resolved, but nothing has changed.

I think i forgot to commit that change my bad

nforro · 2025-04-02T13:18:23Z

specfile/specfile.py

+            # IO doesn't implement getvalue() so tell mypy this is StringIO
+            # (could also be BytesIO)
+            sio = cast(StringIO, self._file)
+            # not a named file, try `getvalue()`
+            specfile._file = type(sio)(sio.getvalue())


I'm not a fan of this, but I don't know how to do this better without actually checking for type.

You could also a type ignore, but I think that's worse.

I can't think of any alternative method so far.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-04-02T13:33:22Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/bb97922bdd16403f815e2972dbc6e0a9

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 00s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 52s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 48s

nforro

Thank you for the work on this!
Could you please squash the commits and update the release notes?

nforro · 2025-04-04T08:25:57Z

specfile/specfile.py

            path: Path to the spec file.
+            file: File object representing the spec file.
+            content: String containing the spec file content.


Can we document the fact that these arguments are mutually exclusive? Probably in the description above, to avoid repetition.

Also, maybe it would make sense to change the order and swap file and content, file is on a lower level than path and content and we can't move path for backward compatibility.

nforro · 2025-04-04T08:28:34Z

specfile/types.py

+
+
+try:
+    from typing import TypedDict
+except ImportError:
+    from typing_extensions import TypedDict
+
+EncodingArgs = TypedDict("EncodingArgs", {"encoding": str, "errors": str})


This shows as resolved, but nothing has changed.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-04-04T11:57:50Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/f17c6af5d06f407895767ef3e994e300

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 54s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 49s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 45s

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-04-04T12:17:55Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/d29135ab1a464d33b62359d0bc711337

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 59s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 47s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 46s

… fixture (#2580) Initiate dist-git repo after spec file is present in `cockpit_ostree` fixture The spec file is copied to the dist-git repo after it is initialized, which means it isn't commited to git and eventually gets removed, but that doesn't make the tests fail because the related Specfile instance keeps its content in memory even though the file no longer exists. That however changes once the Specfile instance gets properly reloaded when needed and the tests start to fail. Fix that. Related to #2532, packit/specfile#458. Reviewed-by: Laura Barcziová Reviewed-by: Matej Focko

nforro · 2025-04-04T13:04:08Z

/packit build

nforro · 2025-04-04T13:04:15Z

/packit-stg build

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-04-04T18:33:45Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/ed775370919c4135a401f6240d753be3

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 00s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 46s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 44s

mynk8 · 2025-04-04T19:11:29Z

Thanks for actively guiding throughout the process !!
I learnt a lot working on this.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-04-04T19:37:17Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/3ae9d9b327a24d1880ddfa29df50bfb8

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 54s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 46s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 42s

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-04-04T19:42:58Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/14411b090483488daf5246f1d750163b

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 52s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 48s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 41s

nforro · 2025-04-05T06:08:45Z

specfile/specfile.py

        sourcedir: Optional[Union[Path, str]] = None,
        autosave: bool = False,
        macros: Optional[List[Tuple[str, Optional[str]]]] = None,
        force_parse: bool = False,
    ) -> None:
        """
        Initializes a specfile object.
-
+        The arguments `path`, `file` and `content` are mutually exclusive and only one can be used.


I'm not able to apply the suggestion from the start of the docstring, nevertheless:

Suggested change

The arguments `path`, `file` and `content` are mutually exclusive and only one can be used.

Initializes a specfile object. You can specify either a path to the spec file,

its content as a string or a file object representing it. `sourcedir` is optional

if `path` or a named `file` is provided and will be set to the parent directory.

nforro · 2025-04-05T06:15:14Z

Could you modify the description a bit:

Fixes
Related to #206 and #248

It's not only related to those issues, it does fix them.

RELEASE NOTES BEGIN

Support creating Specfile instances from file-objects and strings.

reload() now reopens the file.

Update tests for running every test case with a fixture for different input modes, file_path, text_file, binary_file, text_io_stream, > binary_io_stream, content_string.

Add a test for reload().

RELEASE NOTES END

Release notes are supposed to describe user-facing changes. Added support for creating Specfile instances from file objects and strings. is just fine.

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-04-05T06:43:21Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/a23cd51632064845978478a06b921736

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 00s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 49s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 45s

specfile/specfile.py

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-04-05T06:50:19Z

Build succeeded.
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/c39f438384bd4af1bb81886b4b53953f

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 2m 01s
✔️ specfile-tests-rpm-deps SUCCESS in 1m 49s
✔️ specfile-tests-pip-deps SUCCESS in 1m 45s

nforro · 2025-04-05T06:51:55Z

Fixes #206 and #248

Actually, in order for GitHub to automatically close the fixed issues you have to list them separately, so one Fixes line per each. Note the Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues. section on the right.

nforro · 2025-04-05T07:04:16Z

/packit build

nforro · 2025-04-05T07:04:22Z

/packit-stg build

softwarefactory-project-zuul · 2025-04-05T12:25:57Z

Build succeeded (gate pipeline).
https://softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/t/packit-service/buildset/cd7b86b33ea14d818c6cb56723b1e068

✔️ pre-commit SUCCESS in 1m 58s

mynk8 changed the title ~~ft: Instantiate specfile from string~~ ft: Add method to Specfile to Instantiate from string Mar 13, 2025

nforro requested changes Mar 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

specfile/specfile.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

specfile/specfile.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mynk8 changed the title ~~ft: Add method to Specfile to Instantiate from string~~ ft: Instantiate Specfile from strings or file-like objects Mar 15, 2025

nforro requested changes Mar 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

nforro reviewed Mar 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

specfile/constants.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

nforro reviewed Mar 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

mynk8 force-pushed the string branch from c94aa8f to 0b80f01 Compare March 17, 2025 18:50

nforro reviewed Apr 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

nforro self-assigned this Apr 3, 2025

nforro approved these changes Apr 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

mynk8 force-pushed the string branch from d9d20a7 to 3ca8b72 Compare April 4, 2025 18:30

mynk8 force-pushed the string branch 2 times, most recently from 85de55e to 10904a6 Compare April 4, 2025 19:40

nforro reviewed Apr 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

mynk8 force-pushed the string branch from 10904a6 to d0ab591 Compare April 5, 2025 06:40

nforro reviewed Apr 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

specfile/specfile.py Show resolved Hide resolved

ft: Instantiate Specfile from strings or file-like objects

23419c0

mynk8 force-pushed the string branch from d0ab591 to 23419c0 Compare April 5, 2025 06:47

nforro added the mergeit Zuul, merge it! label Apr 5, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot merged commit 6daed02 into packit:main Apr 5, 2025
45 checks passed

-        The arguments `path`, `file` and `content` are mutually exclusive and only one can be used.
+        Initializes a specfile object. You can specify either a path to the spec file,
+        its content as a string or a file object representing it. `sourcedir` is optional
+        if `path` or a named `file` is provided and will be set to the parent directory.

ft: Instantiate Specfile from strings or file-like objects #458

ft: Instantiate Specfile from strings or file-like objects #458

Conversation

mynk8 commented Mar 12, 2025 • edited Loading

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 12, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 12, 2025

nforro commented Mar 14, 2025

mynk8 commented Mar 14, 2025 • edited Loading

nforro commented Mar 14, 2025 • edited Loading

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 14, 2025

mynk8 commented Mar 14, 2025 • edited Loading

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 14, 2025

nforro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 15, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 15, 2025

mynk8 commented Mar 15, 2025 • edited Loading

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 15, 2025

nforro commented Mar 15, 2025

mynk8 commented Mar 15, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 16, 2025

nforro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 17, 2025

mynk8 commented Mar 17, 2025 • edited Loading

nforro commented Mar 17, 2025 • edited Loading

nforro commented Mar 17, 2025

nforro commented Mar 17, 2025

mynk8 commented Mar 17, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Mar 17, 2025

mynk8 commented Mar 17, 2025 • edited Loading

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

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Apr 2, 2025

nforro 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

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Apr 4, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Apr 4, 2025

nforro commented Apr 4, 2025

nforro commented Apr 4, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Apr 4, 2025

mynk8 commented Apr 4, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Apr 4, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Apr 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nforro commented Apr 5, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Apr 5, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Apr 5, 2025

nforro commented Apr 5, 2025

nforro commented Apr 5, 2025

nforro commented Apr 5, 2025

softwarefactory-project-zuul bot commented Apr 5, 2025

mynk8 commented Mar 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mynk8 commented Mar 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

nforro commented Mar 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mynk8 commented Mar 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mynk8 commented Mar 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mynk8 commented Mar 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

nforro commented Mar 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mynk8 commented Mar 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading