Add logs peer discovery #2157

rmoreliovlabs · 2023-10-24T15:04:09Z

Description

Added more logs to PeerExplorer class in order to increase visibility during the peer discovery process.

Motivation and Context

How Has This Been Tested?

Types of changes

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

Checklist:

My code follows the code style of this project.
My change requires a change to the documentation.
I have updated the documentation accordingly.
Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
Requires Activation Code (Hard Fork)

Other information:

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

rmoreliovlabs · 2023-10-25T13:59:33Z

pipeline:run

casiojapi

LGTM

Vovchyk · 2023-10-30T16:11:07Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/NodeChallengeManager.java

    private Map<String, NodeChallenge> activeChallenges = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();

    public NodeChallenge startChallenge(Node challengedNode, Node challenger, PeerExplorer explorer) {
+        logger.debug("co.rsk.net.discovery.NodeChallengeManager.startChallenge - Starting challenge for node:\n" +


Suggested change

logger.debug("co.rsk.net.discovery.NodeChallengeManager.startChallenge - Starting challenge for node:\n" +

logger.debug("startChallenge - Starting challenge for node: [{}] by challenger: [{}]" +

I believe that a full path of a class is already included by a logger. This will simply duplicated it, won't it?

Also I'd use the technic used in other places, like "<something to log>: [{}]" and avoid new lines ("\n") as some tools might treat it as two separate logs (eg Grafana)

I see, I'll remove the path and use the format you mentioned for the variables in the logs message.

Vovchyk · 2023-10-30T16:13:49Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/NodeChallengeManager.java

    private Map<String, NodeChallenge> activeChallenges = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();

    public NodeChallenge startChallenge(Node challengedNode, Node challenger, PeerExplorer explorer) {
+        logger.debug("co.rsk.net.discovery.NodeChallengeManager.startChallenge - Starting challenge for node:\n" +
+                "challengedNode: {}\n" +
+                "challenger: {}", challengedNode.toString(), challenger.toString());


I think it's no need to call toString() on objects you want to log - it'll be done under the hood automatically. Plus null's would be handled correctly, plus the toString() method wouldn't be called at all for higher log levels

Done, I removed the toString() calls.

Vovchyk · 2023-10-30T16:19:33Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerDiscoveryRequest.java

+    public String toString() {
+        return new ToStringBuilder(this)
+                .append("messageId", this.messageId)
+                .append("message", this.message.toString())


I wouldn't explicitly call toString() here and below - field could be null or in some cases its call might not be needed at all

Vovchyk · 2023-10-30T16:20:25Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/DiscoveryEvent.java

+                .append("message", this.message.toString())
+                .append("address", this.address.toString())


I wouldn't explicitly call toString() here and below

Vovchyk · 2023-10-30T16:21:44Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/table/NodeDistanceTable.java

@@ -51,6 +54,9 @@ public synchronized OperationResult removeNode(Node node) {
    }

    public synchronized List<Node> getClosestNodes(NodeID nodeId) {
+        logger.debug("co.rsk.net.discovery.table.NodeDistanceTable.getClosestNodes - Getting closest nodes:\n" +


see similar comment above

Vovchyk · 2023-10-30T16:24:27Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

@@ -160,6 +160,11 @@ void setUDPChannel(UDPChannel udpChannel) {
    }

    synchronized void handleMessage(DiscoveryEvent event) {
+        logger.debug("co.rsk.net.discovery.PeerExplorer.handleMessage - Handling message:\n" +


see similar comment above and also check similar log messages below

Vovchyk · 2023-10-30T16:28:31Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

+        logger.debug("co.rsk.net.discovery.PeerExplorer.handleNeighborsMessage - Handling neighbors message:\n" +
+                        "neighborsResponseAddress hostName: {},\n" +
+                        "neighborsResponseAddress port: {},\n" +
+                        "nodeId: {},\n" +
+                        "messageId: {}\n" +
+                        "nodesCount: {}\n" +
+                        "nodes: {}"
+                , neighborsResponseAddress.getHostName(), neighborsResponseAddress.getPort(), message.getNodeId(), message.getMessageId(), message.countNodes(), message.getNodes());
+
        Node connectedNode = this.establishedConnections.get(message.getNodeId());

+        logger.debug("co.rsk.net.discovery.PeerExplorer.handleNeighborsMessage - Get connectedNode result: {}", connectedNode);
+


curious if it'd be possible to combine these two logs into one? And in similar cases below when multiple occurrences of 'logger.debug(..)` appear in one method? Simply just to not overwhelm our logs?

Done, but I left some logs like this for some sendX() to indicate when a message gets created, like here.

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

Vovchyk · 2023-10-31T09:41:48Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/NodeChallengeManager.java

    private Map<String, NodeChallenge> activeChallenges = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();

    public NodeChallenge startChallenge(Node challengedNode, Node challenger, PeerExplorer explorer) {
+        logger.debug("startChallenge - Starting challenge for node: [{}] by challenger: [{}]", challengedNode.toString(), challenger.toString());


Suggested change

logger.debug("startChallenge - Starting challenge for node: [{}] by challenger: [{}]", challengedNode.toString(), challenger.toString());

logger.debug("startChallenge - Starting challenge for node: [{}] by challenger: [{}]", challengedNode, challenger);

I'd also print a similar log in the removeChallenge() method down below with the result of removal

Got it, will do.

Vovchyk · 2023-10-31T11:47:21Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

@@ -350,17 +429,26 @@ synchronized void update() {
        }

        List<Node> closestNodes = this.distanceTable.getClosestNodes(this.localNode.getId());
+
+        logger.trace("update - Updating nodes list with state: {}, closestNodes: {}", state, closestNodes);


Suggested change

logger.trace("update - Updating nodes list with state: {}, closestNodes: {}", state, closestNodes);

logger.trace("update - closestNodes: [{}]", closestNodes);

not sure we should long a state value here - it's gonna be always the same - RUNNING, wdyt?

You are right, the log inside the if block will log the state if it is different from RUNNING anyways.

Vovchyk · 2023-10-31T11:50:10Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/table/NodeDistanceTable.java

@@ -51,6 +54,8 @@ public synchronized OperationResult removeNode(Node node) {
    }

    public synchronized List<Node> getClosestNodes(NodeID nodeId) {
+        logger.debug("getClosestNodes - Getting nodes closest to node: [{}]", nodeId.toString());


not sure we need to print a log here - it's a getter. It also seems that similar data is already printed upper the call stack

I'll remove it.

Vovchyk · 2023-10-31T11:57:53Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

+                "state: [{}], " +
+                "type: [{}], " +
+                "networkId: [{}]",
+                state, event.getMessage().getMessageType(), event.getMessage().getNetworkId().getAsInt());


Suggested change

state, event.getMessage().getMessageType(), event.getMessage().getNetworkId().getAsInt());

state, event.getMessage().getMessageType(), event.getMessage().getNetworkId());

I'd rather not to call getAsInt(), as it looks like it can throw an exception in some circumstances, plus OptionalInt already implements toString() internally

Vovchyk · 2023-10-31T12:00:36Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

@@ -170,6 +176,8 @@ synchronized void handleMessage(DiscoveryEvent event) {
        //have a networkId in the message yet, then just let them through, for now.
        if (event.getMessage().getNetworkId().isPresent() &&
                event.getMessage().getNetworkId().getAsInt() != this.networkId) {
+            logger.debug("handleMessage - Message ignored because network id [{}] is different from [{}]",


Suggested change

logger.debug("handleMessage - Message ignored because network id [{}] is different from [{}]",

logger.warn("handleMessage - Message ignored because remote peer's network id: [{}] is different from local network id: [{}]",

Vovchyk · 2023-10-31T12:24:27Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

+
+        logger.debug("sendFindNode - Sending find node message to " +
+                        "nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +
+                        "nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +
+                        "findNodePeerMessage: [{}]"
+                , node.getAddress().getHostName(), node.getAddress().getPort(), findNodePeerMessage);
+


what about combining this with the one below?

Vovchyk · 2023-10-31T12:28:55Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

@@ -335,6 +412,8 @@ private void purgeRequests() {
    }

    synchronized void clean() {
+        logger.trace("clean - Cleaning expired requests with state: {}", state);


we already print a WARN if state != ExecState.RUNNING, which should be rather a rare / exceptional case. I guess we could simply do logger.trace("clean - Cleaning obsolete requests ..."); just above this.purgeRequests();, wdyt?

Vovchyk · 2023-10-31T12:40:28Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

+                        "nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +
+                        "nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +
+                        "findNodePeerMessage: [{}]"
+                , node.getAddress().getHostName(), node.getAddress().getPort(), findNodePeerMessage);


Suggested change

, node.getAddress().getHostName(), node.getAddress().getPort(), findNodePeerMessage);

, nodeAddress.getHostName(), nodeAddress.getPort(), findNodePeerMessage);

Vovchyk · 2023-10-31T12:40:54Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

+                        "nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +
+                        "nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +


Suggested change

"nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +

"nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +

"nodeAddress: [{}/{}], " +

Done, I also updated all instances where we log the addres to follow this format.

Vovchyk · 2023-10-31T12:43:36Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

+        logger.debug("removeConnection - Removing node: [{}], " +
+                "nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +
+                "nodeAddress port: [{}]", node.getHexId(), node.getAddress().getHostName(), node.getAddress().getPort());
+


Suggested change

logger.debug("removeConnection - Removing node: [{}], " +

"nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +

"nodeAddress port: [{}]", node.getHexId(), node.getAddress().getHostName(), node.getAddress().getPort());

if (logger.isDebugEnabled()) {

InetSocketAddress address = node.getAddress();

logger.debug("removeConnection - Removing node: [{}], " +

"nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +

"nodeAddress port: [{}]", node.getHexId(), address.getHostName(), address.getPort());

}

node.getAddress() seems to be quite heavy

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/NodeChallengeManager.java

rmoreliovlabs · 2023-11-01T12:03:34Z

pipeline:run

Vovchyk · 2023-11-01T15:59:37Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

+                "type: [{}], " +
+                "networkId: [{}]",
+                state, event.getMessage().getMessageType(),
+                event.getMessage().getNetworkId().isPresent() ? event.getMessage().getNetworkId().getAsInt() : null);


this might be error-prone. This doesn't handle the case when event.getMessage().getNetworkId() returns a null. Simply event.getMessage().getNetworkId()?

Using event.getMessage().getNetworkId() would trigger this alert in CodeQL. I could add another check, remove the network id from the message or dismiss the alert.

Vovchyk · 2023-11-01T16:04:00Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

@@ -170,6 +177,8 @@ synchronized void handleMessage(DiscoveryEvent event) {
        //have a networkId in the message yet, then just let them through, for now.
        if (event.getMessage().getNetworkId().isPresent() &&
                event.getMessage().getNetworkId().getAsInt() != this.networkId) {
+            logger.warn("handleMessage - Message ignored because remote peer's network id: [{}] is different from local network id: [{}]",
+                    event.getMessage().getNetworkId().getAsInt(), this.networkId);


this sequence of calls is error-prone. An exception can be thrown under some circumstances, eg when networkId is not set in a message. event.getMessage().getNetworkId()?

Vovchyk · 2023-11-01T16:08:11Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

            this.sendNeighbors(connectedNode.getAddress(), nodesToSend, message.getMessageId());
            updateEntry(connectedNode);
+        } else {
+            logger.warn("handleFindNode - Node with id [{}] is null", nodeId);


Suggested change

logger.warn("handleFindNode - Node with id [{}] is null", nodeId);

logger.warn("handleFindNode - Node with id: [{}] is not connected. Ignored", nodeId);

Vovchyk · 2023-11-01T16:09:04Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

@@ -239,6 +273,8 @@ private void handleNeighborsMessage(InetSocketAddress neighborsResponseAddress,
                this.startConversationWithNewNodes();
            }
            updateEntry(connectedNode);
+        } else {
+            logger.warn("handleFindNode - Node with id [{}] is null", nodeId);


Suggested change

logger.warn("handleFindNode - Node with id [{}] is null", nodeId);

logger.warn("handleFindNode - Node with id: [{}] is not connected. Ignored", nodeId);

Vovchyk · 2023-11-01T16:12:38Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

@@ -254,6 +290,8 @@ synchronized PingPeerMessage sendPing(InetSocketAddress nodeAddress, int attempt
        PingPeerMessage nodeMessage = checkPendingPeerToAddress(nodeAddress);

        if (nodeMessage != null) {
+            logger.warn("sendPing - Node message to address [{}/{}] is null", nodeAddress.getHostName(), nodeAddress.getPort());


Suggested change

logger.warn("sendPing - Node message to address [{}/{}] is null", nodeAddress.getHostName(), nodeAddress.getPort());

logger.warn("sendPing - No ping message has been sent to address: [{}/{}], as there's pending one", nodeAddress.getHostName(), nodeAddress.getPort());

Vovchyk · 2023-11-02T08:14:49Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

+                "type: [{}], " +
+                "networkId: [{}]",
+                state, event.getMessage().getMessageType(),
+                event.getMessage().getNetworkId().isPresent());


seems there's a small typo here - .isPresent() can be omitted

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

Vovchyk · 2023-11-03T12:17:00Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

+        logger.debug("handleMessage - Handling message with " +
+                "state: [{}], " +
+                "type: [{}], " +
+                "networkId: [{}]",
+                state, event.getMessage().getMessageType(),
+                event.getMessage().getNetworkId());


Suggested change

logger.debug("handleMessage - Handling message with " +

"state: [{}], " +

"type: [{}], " +

"networkId: [{}]",

state, event.getMessage().getMessageType(),

event.getMessage().getNetworkId());

logger.debug("handleMessage - Handling message with " +

"type: [{}], " +

"networkId: [{}]",

event.getMessage().getMessageType(),

event.getMessage().getNetworkId());

Vovchyk · 2023-11-03T12:19:24Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

@@ -219,17 +241,29 @@ private void handleFindNode(FindNodePeerMessage message) {

        if (connectedNode != null) {
            List<Node> nodesToSend = this.distanceTable.getClosestNodes(nodeId);
-            logger.debug("About to send [{}] neighbors to ip[{}] port[{}] nodeId[{}]", nodesToSend.size(), connectedNode.getHost(), connectedNode.getPort(), connectedNode.getHexId());
+            logger.debug("handleFindNode - About to send [{}] neighbors to address[{}/{}], nodeId[{}] with messageId[{}]",


Suggested change

logger.debug("handleFindNode - About to send [{}] neighbors to address[{}/{}], nodeId[{}] with messageId[{}]",

logger.debug("handleFindNode - About to send [{}] neighbors to address: [{}/{}], nodeId: [{}] with messageId: [{}]",

Vovchyk · 2023-11-03T12:20:31Z

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java


        if (connectedNode != null) {
-            logger.debug("Neighbors received from [{}]", connectedNode.getHexId());
+            logger.debug("handleNeighborsMessage - Neighbors received from id[{}], ip[{}], port[{}] with " +


Suggested change

logger.debug("handleNeighborsMessage - Neighbors received from id[{}], ip[{}], port[{}] with " +

logger.debug("handleNeighborsMessage - Neighbors received from id: [{}], address: [{}/{}] with " +

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java

rmoreliovlabs · 2023-11-29T16:10:34Z

pipeline:run

nagarev · 2023-11-30T20:35:26Z

pipeline:run

sonarqubecloud · 2023-12-07T15:30:33Z

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
2 Code Smells

64.4% Coverage
0.0% Duplication

Vovchyk · 2023-12-07T16:02:29Z

pipeline:run

Vovchyk · 2023-12-07T16:02:54Z

pipeline:run

rmoreliovlabs · 2023-12-08T15:34:43Z

pipeline:run

rmoreliovlabs · 2023-12-08T15:53:06Z

pipeline:run

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Oct 24, 2023

View reviewed changes

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Oct 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

rmoreliovlabs marked this pull request as ready for review October 25, 2023 14:21

casiojapi previously approved these changes Oct 26, 2023

View reviewed changes

Vovchyk requested changes Oct 30, 2023

View reviewed changes

rmoreliovlabs dismissed casiojapi’s stale review via c829cd0 October 30, 2023 20:02

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Oct 30, 2023

View reviewed changes

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

Vovchyk requested changes Oct 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Oct 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/NodeChallengeManager.java Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Oct 31, 2023

View reviewed changes

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/NodeChallengeManager.java Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

Vovchyk requested changes Nov 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

Vovchyk requested changes Nov 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Nov 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

Vovchyk requested changes Nov 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Nov 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

rskj-core/src/main/java/co/rsk/net/discovery/PeerExplorer.java Dismissed Show dismissed Hide dismissed

Vovchyk previously approved these changes Nov 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

rmoreliovlabs force-pushed the add-logs-peer-discovery branch from 1774290 to e23bd46 Compare November 29, 2023 15:34

rmoreliovlabs added 8 commits December 4, 2023 08:08

Add extra logs to peer discovery

a87648f

Remove unused import

607aa08

Add method variables to logs

da8bf30

Add more logs

f094f3a

Fix CodeQL errors

5013140

Remove full method path and line breaks from messages

92d07e7

Fix codeQL alert

644fbcc

Updating messages

724bc44

rmoreliovlabs added 7 commits December 4, 2023 08:08

Fix codeQL issues

c23e97e

Update removeChallenge log message

2387376

Add toString to NodeChallenge

e2a50ae

Remove log from removeChallenge

74453b6

Update some logs messages and variables

8489ead

Remove isPresent call from log

2be7c2e

Update messages

1365f5b

rmoreliovlabs force-pushed the add-logs-peer-discovery branch from e23bd46 to 1365f5b Compare December 4, 2023 12:08

Code cleaning

fde468e

rmoreliovlabs dismissed Vovchyk’s stale review via fde468e December 7, 2023 13:13

Code cleaning

8d7333e

Vovchyk approved these changes Dec 7, 2023

View reviewed changes

Vovchyk merged commit a8006f4 into master Dec 11, 2023
11 checks passed

Vovchyk deleted the add-logs-peer-discovery branch December 11, 2023 12:16

aeidelman added this to the Fingerroot 5.4.0 milestone Jan 23, 2024

	logger.debug("co.rsk.net.discovery.NodeChallengeManager.startChallenge - Starting challenge for node:\n" +
	logger.debug("startChallenge - Starting challenge for node: [{}] by challenger: [{}]" +

		.append("message", this.message.toString())
		.append("address", this.address.toString())

	logger.trace("update - Updating nodes list with state: {}, closestNodes: {}", state, closestNodes);
	logger.trace("update - closestNodes: [{}]", closestNodes);

	state, event.getMessage().getMessageType(), event.getMessage().getNetworkId().getAsInt());
	state, event.getMessage().getMessageType(), event.getMessage().getNetworkId());

	logger.debug("handleMessage - Message ignored because network id [{}] is different from [{}]",
	logger.warn("handleMessage - Message ignored because remote peer's network id: [{}] is different from local network id: [{}]",

	, node.getAddress().getHostName(), node.getAddress().getPort(), findNodePeerMessage);
	, nodeAddress.getHostName(), nodeAddress.getPort(), findNodePeerMessage);

		"nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +
		"nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +

	"nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +
	"nodeAddress hostName: [{}], " +
	"nodeAddress: [{}/{}], " +

	logger.warn("handleFindNode - Node with id [{}] is null", nodeId);
	logger.warn("handleFindNode - Node with id: [{}] is not connected. Ignored", nodeId);

	logger.warn("sendPing - Node message to address [{}/{}] is null", nodeAddress.getHostName(), nodeAddress.getPort());
	logger.warn("sendPing - No ping message has been sent to address: [{}/{}], as there's pending one", nodeAddress.getHostName(), nodeAddress.getPort());

	logger.debug("handleFindNode - About to send [{}] neighbors to address[{}/{}], nodeId[{}] with messageId[{}]",
	logger.debug("handleFindNode - About to send [{}] neighbors to address: [{}/{}], nodeId: [{}] with messageId: [{}]",

	logger.debug("handleNeighborsMessage - Neighbors received from id[{}], ip[{}], port[{}] with " +
	logger.debug("handleNeighborsMessage - Neighbors received from id: [{}], address: [{}/{}] with " +

Add logs peer discovery #2157

Add logs peer discovery #2157

Conversation

rmoreliovlabs commented Oct 24, 2023

Description

Motivation and Context

How Has This Been Tested?

Types of changes

Checklist:

rmoreliovlabs commented Oct 25, 2023

casiojapi 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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rmoreliovlabs commented Nov 1, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rmoreliovlabs commented Nov 29, 2023

nagarev commented Nov 30, 2023

sonarqubecloud bot commented Dec 7, 2023

Vovchyk commented Dec 7, 2023

Vovchyk commented Dec 7, 2023

rmoreliovlabs commented Dec 8, 2023

rmoreliovlabs commented Dec 8, 2023