feat(grpc): Add tonic transport #2339

arjan-bal · 2025-07-15T07:25:36Z

This PR includes the following:

A transport trait that will be used by gRPC subchannels. Transports are expected to transfer serialized messages as bytes, but an in-memory transport may also transfer structs without serialization.
The runtime trait is extended to include a method for creating TCP streams. Adapters are added to convert a gRPC runtime to a Hyper runtime.
A transport implementation that uses tonic. To avoid a dependency on the code in tonic/src/transport, required code is copied over.
A tonic codec that sends/receives Bytes. This is a temporary workaround until tonic supports bypassing the codec and receiving bytes.
A test that uses the grpc tonic transport to create a bi-di stream with a tonic server.
Remove the unused feature examples/tower since was causing udeps failures due to cargo's feature resolution in workspaces.

arjan-bal · 2025-07-15T14:18:18Z

Hi @dfawley and @LucioFranco, could you please review this PR when you have a moment?

easwars · 2025-07-21T17:22:54Z

grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs

@@ -229,6 +235,7 @@ impl InternalSubchannel {
        transport: Arc<dyn Transport>,
        backoff: Arc<dyn Backoff>,
        unregister_fn: Box<dyn FnOnce(SubchannelKey) + Send + Sync>,
+        runtime: Arc<dyn Runtime>,


Curious:

Given that we will have the same runtime for all the different gRPC components that require a runtime, did we consider something like a singleton that is initialized at init time, and all the components can use a getter to retrieve and use the singleton instead of the runtime being passed to every component that needs it?

Different grpc channels could theoretically use different runtimes. Maybe that isn't something we need to support, but it's pretty easily attained - it just requires passing around the runtime a bit more than if it were global.

C++ passes the event engine through channel args. In my opinion passing the runtime through a function param allows for cleaner dependency injection. It also enforces that the runtime is set during channel creation, before RPCs are made.

Having a singleton runtime will force all gRPC channels in a binary to use the same runtime. I don't know if this is a con though. We can discuss this in the team meeting.

This is fine, thoug all of these Arc<dyn ...> should have new type wrappers to clean this up. I think passing a runtime handle around is totally fine as long as its cheap to clone. We likely do not want users to have to shuffle a runtime around though.

easwars · 2025-07-21T17:24:35Z

grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs

@@ -345,30 +353,34 @@ impl InternalSubchannel {
        let transport = self.transport.clone();
        let address = self.address().address;
        let state_machine_tx = self.state_machine_event_sender.clone();
-        let connect_task = tokio::task::spawn(async move {


Do we have some kind of vet equivalent to ensure that task spawning (and other features provided by the runtime) are always only used from the runtime and not from other places (like tokio or the standard library)?

Ultimately (pre-1.0) we want to not have any tokio runtime crates/features listed in Cargo.toml, except if you are using a tokio feature flag. That would prevent such a thing.

I spent some time looking into this. I found two approaches:

Use clippy disallowed_method, disallowed_macros, etc. to block tokio symbols like tokio::spawn, tokio::task::spawn, etc. The problem with this approach is that we need to list all the types we want to block, there's not glob (*) operator available. It's also easy to miss the clippy warnings since they don't block PR submission.

Introduce a separate crate, say grpc-runtime-tokio, for the default runtime implementation, and disable tokio's runtime features in the main grpc crate. If a function in the grpc crate tries to call tokio::spawn, it will fail to compile as the required feature will be disabled. The concern with this approach is that we need to export the runtime trait (and related types) which are unstable.

@LucioFranco would like to get your thoughts on this.

Cargo features can be enabled even if a (transitive) dependency enabled the feature. I wasn't seein any compilation failures even after removing the tokio:rt feature from the Cargo.toml. I tracked down the depdency to tower's buffer feature:

cargo tree -i tokio -e features --edges=normal -p grpc --no-default-features

tokio v1.46.1 ├── tokio feature "bytes" │ └── tokio feature "io-util" │ └── h2 v0.4.11 │ └── h2 feature "default" │ └── hyper v1.6.0 │ ├── hyper feature "client" │ │ └── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) │ ├── hyper feature "default" │ │ └── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) │ └── hyper feature "http2" │ └── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) ├── tokio feature "default" │ ├── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) │ ├── h2 v0.4.11 (*) │ ├── hyper v1.6.0 (*) │ ├── tokio-stream v0.1.17 │ │ └── tonic v0.14.0 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/tonic) │ │ └── tonic feature "codegen" │ │ └── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) │ │ ├── tokio-stream feature "default" │ │ │ └── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) │ │ └── tokio-stream feature "time" │ │ └── tokio-stream feature "default" (*) │ ├── tokio-util v0.7.15 │ │ └── tower v0.5.2 │ │ ├── tower feature "__common" │ │ │ ├── tower feature "buffer" │ │ │ │ └── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) │ │ │ ├── tower feature "limit" │ │ │ │ └── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) │ │ │ └── tower feature "util" │ │ │ └── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) │ │ ├── tower feature "buffer" (*) │ │ ├── tower feature "default" │ │ │ └── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) │ │ ├── tower feature "futures-core" │ │ │ └── tower feature "__common" (*) │ │ ├── tower feature "futures-util" │ │ │ └── tower feature "util" (*) │ │ ├── tower feature "limit" (*) │ │ ├── tower feature "pin-project-lite" │ │ │ ├── tower feature "__common" (*) │ │ │ └── tower feature "util" (*) │ │ ├── tower feature "sync_wrapper" │ │ │ └── tower feature "util" (*) │ │ ├── tower feature "tokio" │ │ │ ├── tower feature "buffer" (*) │ │ │ └── tower feature "limit" (*) │ │ ├── tower feature "tokio-util" │ │ │ ├── tower feature "buffer" (*) │ │ │ └── tower feature "limit" (*) │ │ ├── tower feature "tracing" │ │ │ ├── tower feature "buffer" (*) │ │ │ └── tower feature "limit" (*) │ │ └── tower feature "util" (*) │ │ ├── tokio-util feature "codec" │ │ │ └── h2 v0.4.11 (*) │ │ ├── tokio-util feature "default" │ │ │ └── h2 v0.4.11 (*) │ │ └── tokio-util feature "io" │ │ └── h2 v0.4.11 (*) │ └── tower v0.5.2 (*) ├── tokio feature "io-util" (*) ├── tokio feature "rt" │ └── tower feature "buffer" (*) ├── tokio feature "sync" │ ├── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) │ ├── hyper v1.6.0 (*) │ ├── tokio-stream v0.1.17 (*) │ ├── tokio-util v0.7.15 (*) │ └── tower v0.5.2 (*) │ ├── tower feature "buffer" (*) │ └── tower feature "limit" (*) └── tokio feature "time" └── grpc v0.9.0-alpha.1 (/usr/local/google/home/arjansbal/Development/tonic/grpc-tonic-transport-1/grpc) ├── tokio-stream feature "time" (*) └── tower feature "limit" (*)

Buffer has a constructor that uses tokio as the default executor. We're not using this constructor though.

I've added a default private feature for the tokio runtime that enables the tokio/rt feature flag. Due to this, tokio::spawn should not be usable outside the grpc::rt::tokio module. If tokio::spawn is used outside this module, the build will fail with default feature flags disabled, failing CI.

We discussed this yesterday, for now this is fine, we can rely on tokio initially until we make some more overall progress.

easwars · 2025-07-21T17:27:01Z

grpc/src/client/transport/registry.rs

        self.m
            .lock()
            .unwrap()
            .insert(address_type.to_string(), Arc::new(transport));
    }
+
    /// Retrieve a name resolver from the registry, or None if not found.


Nit: this comments needs updating.

Fixed the comment.

easwars · 2025-07-21T17:28:52Z

grpc/src/client/transport/registry.rs

@@ -26,20 +25,20 @@ impl std::fmt::Debug for TransportRegistry {

 impl TransportRegistry {
    /// Construct an empty name resolver registry.
-    pub fn new() -> Self {
+    pub(crate) fn new() -> Self {


Should we also implement Default trait for this type by inheriting it?

There is an explicit Default implementation below. I removed it and used the derive macro instead.

easwars · 2025-07-21T17:32:48Z

grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs

@@ -388,7 +400,9 @@ impl InternalSubchannel {
            // error string containing information about why the connection
            // terminated? But what can we do with that error other than logging
            // it, which the transport can do as well?
-            svc.disconnected().await;
+            if let Err(e) = closed_rx.await {


Should the above task spawn be on the runtime as well instead of directly using tokio?

Yes, used the runtime here.

dfawley · 2025-07-22T20:51:08Z

grpc/Cargo.toml

+futures = "0.3.31"
+tower = { version = "0.5.2", features = ["buffer", "limit", "util"] }
+tower-service = "0.3.3"
+socket2 = "0.5.10"


Could you please keep these sorted so the diffs are easier to read? E.g. socket2 and tower-service are already present at the same number.

Sorted them using cargo-sort and formatted it using taplo.

dfawley · 2025-07-22T20:53:41Z

grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs

@@ -229,6 +235,7 @@ impl InternalSubchannel {
        transport: Arc<dyn Transport>,
        backoff: Arc<dyn Backoff>,
        unregister_fn: Box<dyn FnOnce(SubchannelKey) + Send + Sync>,
+        runtime: Arc<dyn Runtime>,


Different grpc channels could theoretically use different runtimes. Maybe that isn't something we need to support, but it's pretty easily attained - it just requires passing around the runtime a bit more than if it were global.

dfawley · 2025-07-22T20:56:41Z

grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs

@@ -345,30 +353,34 @@ impl InternalSubchannel {
        let transport = self.transport.clone();
        let address = self.address().address;
        let state_machine_tx = self.state_machine_event_sender.clone();
-        let connect_task = tokio::task::spawn(async move {


Ultimately (pre-1.0) we want to not have any tokio runtime crates/features listed in Cargo.toml, except if you are using a tokio feature flag. That would prevent such a thing.

dfawley · 2025-07-22T21:00:25Z

grpc/src/client/transport/mod.rs

+// TODO: The following options are specific to HTTP/2. We should
+// instead pass an `Attribute` like struct to the connect method instead which
+// can hold config relevant to a particular transport.


FWIW I think it's good to eventually have a "common http2 configuration" struct that multiple h2 transports can share for configuration knobs common across any/most h2-based transport implementations. We can also have transport-specific configuration for tonic. And all of those should be in a generic transport configuration, attribute-like struct.

dfawley · 2025-07-22T21:01:21Z

grpc/src/client/transport/mod.rs

+    pub rate_limit: Option<(u64, Duration)>,
+    pub tcp_keepalive: Option<Duration>,
+    pub tcp_nodelay: bool,
+    pub connect_timeout: Option<Duration>,


deadline (Instant) instead?

Changed to Instant.

Oh sorry I dropped this in here as a draft and forgot to revisit before sending. I'm not sure which one is better, or if it doesn't even really matter. I was thinking about discussing it first. Anyway I think it's not too important, so we can leave it either way for now unless you want to spend time on it.

grpc/src/codec.rs

dfawley · 2025-07-22T21:13:07Z

grpc/src/service.rs


 #[async_trait]
 pub trait Service: Send + Sync {
    async fn call(&self, method: String, request: Request) -> Response;
 }

 // TODO: define methods that will allow serialization/deserialization.
-pub trait Message: Any + Send + Sync {}
+pub trait Message: Any + Send + Sync {
+    fn as_any(self: Box<Self>) -> Box<dyn Any>;


I think these can be removed again, right? Because we're using trait upcasting elsewhere now.

Yes, removed.

Co-authored-by: Doug Fawley <[email protected]>

dfawley

Mostly just some rust recommendations. Obviously I couldn't compile them but I'm pretty sure they're reasonable suggestions. If they don't work, just let me know.

dfawley · 2025-07-24T20:19:02Z

grpc/src/client/transport/mod.rs

+// Using tower/buffer enables tokio's rt feature even though it's possible to
+// create Buffers with a user provided executor.


This seems like something we'll eventually need to solve, right?

dfawley · 2025-07-24T20:24:25Z

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/mod.rs

+    async fn call(&self, method: String, request: GrpcRequest) -> GrpcResponse {
+        let mut grpc = self.grpc.clone();
+        if let Err(e) = grpc.ready().await {
+            let err = Status::unknown(format!("Service was not ready: {}", e));


This text feels slightly wrong.. In what ways can this fail? If the connection is lost then we'll use Status::unavailable and if it times out waiting to accept the request, then Status::deadline_exceeded. Ideally ready() would return something appropriate already that we don't have to wrap, compute, or change, since it's a grpc component.

I copied this from the code generated by Tonic, for example:

tonic/tonic-health/src/generated/grpc_health_v1.rs

Lines 147 to 154 in a738cab

self.inner

.ready()

.await

.map_err(|e| {

tonic::Status::unknown(

format!("Service was not ready: {}", e.into()),

)

})?;

This returns an error when the underlying connection has failed, but I'm not sure if there are other cases where the ready() call might fail. I think returning Unavailable makes more sense here.
@LucioFranco — could you confirm whether it's safe to use Unavailable in this context?

According to the gRPC status code definition for Unavailable:

The service is currently unavailable. This is most likely a transient condition, which can be corrected by retrying with a backoff. Note that it is not always safe to retry non-idempotent operations.

The most likely thing that would fail would be unable to acquire a permit slot for a rate limiter. I would not worry so much about this its likely to go away and 99% of impls return ready. I would maybe return RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED?

dfawley · 2025-07-24T20:27:30Z

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/mod.rs

+            let err = Status::unknown(format!("Service was not ready: {}", e));
+            return create_error_response(err);
+        };
+        let path = if let Ok(p) = PathAndQuery::from_maybe_shared(method) {


This should probably happen near the top? Above waiting for the transport at least.

Moved to the top.

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/mod.rs

dfawley · 2025-07-24T20:33:57Z

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/mod.rs

+    let response = match res {
+        Ok(s) => s,
+        Err(e) => {
+            let stream = futures::stream::once(async { Err(e) });
+            return TonicResponse::new(Box::pin(stream));
+        }
+    };


Suggested change

let response = match res {

Ok(s) => s,

Err(e) => {

let stream = futures::stream::once(async { Err(e) });

return TonicResponse::new(Box::pin(stream));

}

};

let Ok(response) = res else {

let stream = futures::stream::once(async { res });

return TonicResponse::new(Box::pin(stream));

};

This simplification doesn't quite work because the type of res in the else branch is still a Result. While we can call .unwrap_err() to extract the Error, I was trying to avoid using unwrap-style methods to ensure correctness is enforced at compile time.

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/mod.rs

dfawley · 2025-07-24T20:40:42Z

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/mod.rs

+    let mut new_req = TonicRequest::new(bytes_stream as _);
+    *new_req.metadata_mut() = metadata;
+    *new_req.extensions_mut() = extensions;
+    new_req


Use Request::from_parts()?

Yes, changed.

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/mod.rs

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/test.rs

LucioFranco · 2025-07-17T14:19:18Z

grpc/src/client/transport/mod.rs

+    pub init_stream_window_size: Option<u32>,
+    pub init_connection_window_size: Option<u32>,
+    pub http2_keep_alive_interval: Option<Duration>,
+    pub http2_keep_alive_timeout: Option<Duration>,
+    pub http2_keep_alive_while_idle: Option<bool>,
+    pub http2_max_header_list_size: Option<u32>,
+    pub http2_adaptive_window: Option<bool>,
+    pub concurrency_limit: Option<usize>,
+    pub rate_limit: Option<(u64, Duration)>,
+    pub tcp_keepalive: Option<Duration>,
+    pub tcp_nodelay: bool,
+    pub connect_timeout: Option<Duration>,


These pub's should also be pub(crate) since the fields visibility can't be greater than the parent. The compiler should warn about this I believe so maybe the warning is disabled?

LucioFranco · 2025-07-17T14:21:13Z

grpc/src/client/transport/registry.rs

+/// the address type they are intended to handle.
+#[derive(Clone)]
+pub struct TransportRegistry {
+    m: Arc<Mutex<HashMap<String, Arc<dyn Transport>>>>,


I prefer to use inner rather than one letter field names.

LucioFranco · 2025-07-17T14:23:15Z

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/mod.rs

+use futures::stream::StreamExt;
+use futures::Stream;


Both of these need to pull from tokio_stream and we should remove futures as much as possible.

LucioFranco · 2025-07-17T14:24:02Z

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/mod.rs

+use hyper::client::conn::http2::Builder;
+use hyper::client::conn::http2::SendRequest;
+use std::{
+    error::Error,
+    future::Future,
+    net::SocketAddr,
+    pin::Pin,
+    str::FromStr,
+    sync::Arc,
+    task::{Context, Poll},
+};
+use tonic::Request as TonicRequest;
+use tonic::Response as TonicResponse;
+use tonic::Streaming;
+use tower::{
+    buffer::{future::ResponseFuture as BufferResponseFuture, Buffer},
+    limit::{ConcurrencyLimitLayer, RateLimitLayer},
+    util::BoxService,
+    ServiceBuilder,
+};


I mentioned this in @dfawley's PR but we should be consistent on our import style. I say we just follow the pattern in tonic.

LucioFranco · 2025-07-30T11:50:21Z

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/mod.rs

+    async fn call(&self, method: String, request: GrpcRequest) -> GrpcResponse {
+        let mut grpc = self.grpc.clone();
+        if let Err(e) = grpc.ready().await {
+            let err = Status::unknown(format!("Service was not ready: {}", e));


The most likely thing that would fail would be unable to acquire a permit slot for a rate limiter. I would not worry so much about this its likely to go away and 99% of impls return ready. I would maybe return RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED?

LucioFranco · 2025-07-30T11:51:24Z

grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs

@@ -229,6 +235,7 @@ impl InternalSubchannel {
        transport: Arc<dyn Transport>,
        backoff: Arc<dyn Backoff>,
        unregister_fn: Box<dyn FnOnce(SubchannelKey) + Send + Sync>,
+        runtime: Arc<dyn Runtime>,


This is fine, thoug all of these Arc<dyn ...> should have new type wrappers to clean this up. I think passing a runtime handle around is totally fine as long as its cheap to clone. We likely do not want users to have to shuffle a runtime around though.

LucioFranco · 2025-07-30T11:52:09Z

grpc/src/client/subchannel.rs

@@ -345,30 +353,34 @@ impl InternalSubchannel {
        let transport = self.transport.clone();
        let address = self.address().address;
        let state_machine_tx = self.state_machine_event_sender.clone();
-        let connect_task = tokio::task::spawn(async move {


We discussed this yesterday, for now this is fine, we can rely on tokio initially until we make some more overall progress.

grpc/src/client/transport/tonic/test.rs

Add tonic transport

66e6c10

arjan-bal force-pushed the grpc-tonic-transport-1 branch from 1417e9d to 66e6c10 Compare July 15, 2025 07:27

Fix udeps and msrv

b113136

Merge remote-tracking branch 'source/master' into grpc-tonic-transport-1

957377c

arjan-bal force-pushed the grpc-tonic-transport-1 branch from fe1436e to 957377c Compare July 21, 2025 09:30

easwars reviewed Jul 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

arjan-bal added 3 commits July 23, 2025 20:38

Clippy fixes

13f1628

Address review

e69cb49

Use trait down casting

b01eca5

dfawley reviewed Jul 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

arjan-bal and others added 2 commits July 24, 2025 13:31

Update grpc/src/codec.rs

13bb667

Co-authored-by: Doug Fawley <[email protected]>

Sort dependencies

e893238

arjan-bal force-pushed the grpc-tonic-transport-1 branch 3 times, most recently from 41977ed to 38901f4 Compare July 24, 2025 20:39

dfawley reviewed Jul 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

arjan-bal force-pushed the grpc-tonic-transport-1 branch 2 times, most recently from 09c8dc2 to bfddcba Compare July 24, 2025 20:59

arjan-bal added 2 commits July 25, 2025 02:33

Fail build if tokio spawn is used outside runtime

ae686c8

Use connect deadline instead of timeout

7388013

arjan-bal force-pushed the grpc-tonic-transport-1 branch from bfddcba to 7388013 Compare July 24, 2025 21:03

arjan-bal added 2 commits July 29, 2025 13:56

Merge remote-tracking branch 'source/master' into grpc-tonic-transport-1

398fdcf

Review suggestions

169bd72

arjan-bal requested review from LucioFranco, dfawley and easwars July 29, 2025 11:38

LucioFranco reviewed Jul 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

arjan-bal force-pushed the grpc-tonic-transport-1 branch from ef54eb2 to 77557b9 Compare July 30, 2025 14:03

Fix udeps check

e6afa5f

arjan-bal force-pushed the grpc-tonic-transport-1 branch from 77557b9 to e6afa5f Compare July 30, 2025 14:05

		// Using tower/buffer enables tokio's rt feature even though it's possible to
		// create Buffers with a user provided executor.

	self.inner
	.ready()
	.await
	.map_err(\|e\| {
	tonic::Status::unknown(
	format!("Service was not ready: {}", e.into()),
	)
	})?;

feat(grpc): Add tonic transport #2339

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat(grpc): Add tonic transport #2339

Uh oh!

Conversation

arjan-bal commented Jul 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

arjan-bal commented Jul 15, 2025

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!

arjan-bal Jul 23, 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!

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dfawley left a comment

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!

arjan-bal commented Jul 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

arjan-bal Jul 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading