[Flight] Encode React Elements in Replies as Temporary References #28564

sebmarkbage · 2024-03-15T17:45:28Z

Currently you can accidentally pass React Element to a Server Action. It warns but in prod it actually works because we can encode the symbol and otherwise it's mostly a plain object. It only works if you only pass host components and no function props etc. which makes it potentially error later. The first thing this does it just early hard error for elements.

I made Lazy work by unwrapping though since that will be replaced by Promises later which works.

Our protocol is not fully symmetric in that elements flow from Server -> Client. Only the Server can resolve Components and only the client should really be able to receive host components. It's not intended that a Server can actually do something with them other than passing them to the client.

In the case of a Reply, we expect the client to be stateful. It's waiting for a response. So anything we can't serialize we can still pass by reference to an in memory object. So I introduce the concept of a TemporaryReferenceSet which is an opaque object that you create before encoding the reply. This then stashes any unserializable values in this set and encode the slot by id. When a new response from the Action then returns we pass the same temporary set into the parser which can then restore the objects. This lets you pass a value by reference to the server and back into another slot.

For example it can be used to render children inside a parent tree from a server action:

export async function Component({ children }) {
  "use server";
  return <div>{children}</div>;
}

(You wouldn't normally do this due to the waterfalls but for advanced cases.)

A common scenario where this comes up accidentally today is in useActionState.

export function action(state, formData) {
  "use server";
   if (errored) {
     return <div>This action <strong>errored</strong></div>;
   }
   return null;
}

const [errors, formAction] = useActionState(action);
return <div>{errors}<div>;

It feels like I'm just passing the JSX from server to client. However, because useActionState also sends the previous state back to the server this should not actually be valid. Before this PR this actually worked accidentally. You get a DEV warning but it used to work in prod. Once you do something like pass a client reference it won't work tho. We could perhaps make client references work by stashing where we got them from but it wouldn't work with all possible JSX.

By adding temporary references to the action implementation this will work again - on the client. It'll also be more efficient since we don't send back the JSX content that you shouldn't introspect on the server anyway.

However, a flaw here is that the progressive enhancement of this case won't work because we can't use temporary references for progressive enhancement since there's no in memory stash. What is worse is that it won't error if you hydrate. ~~It also will error late in the example above because the first state is "undefined" so invoking the form once works - it errors on the second attempt when it tries to send the error state back again.~~ It actually errors on the first invocation because we need to eagerly serialize "previous state" into the form. So at least that's better.

I think maybe the solution to this particular pattern would be to allow JSX to serialize if you have no temporary reference set, and remember client references so that client references can be returned back to the server as client references. That way anything you could send from the server could also be returned to the server. But it would only deopt to serializing it for progressive enhancement. The consequence of that would be that there's a lot of JSX that might accidentally seem like it should work but it's only if you've gotten it from the server before that it works. This would have to have pair them somehow though since you can't take a client reference from one implementation of Flight and use it with another.

sebmarkbage · 2024-03-15T17:58:30Z

packages/react-client/src/ReactFlightReplyClient.js

+        }
+        // We can serialize class instances as temporary references.
+        return serializeTemporaryReferenceID(
+          writeTemporaryReference(temporaryReferences, value),


Anything we can't serialize, we can still encode as a temporary reference.

Unfortunately, for some things like the stuff below, we only warn in DEV that we can't serialize it so for any of those, we don't put it as a temporary reference.

So any of those are really invalid in both cases.

unstubbable · 2024-03-15T18:00:14Z

Lovely PR description! ❤️

shuding · 2024-03-17T21:18:31Z

packages/react-client/src/ReactFlightClient.js

+        // Temporary Reference
+        const id = parseInt(value.slice(2), 16);
+        const temporaryReferences = response._tempRefs;
+        if (temporaryReferences == null) {


Saw that the type is void | TemporaryReferenceSet and in the other place we're checking with === undefined. Is the == null expected?

Yea, I just do it since it's a public API and a user might still pass null incorrectly but really we should probably be more strongly opinionated about not doing that.

gnoff · 2024-03-18T16:20:04Z

packages/react-client/src/ReactFlightReplyClient.js

-            pendingParts--;
-            if (pendingParts === 0) {
-              resolve(data);
+            try {


was this supposed to always be wrapped in try? I don't quite follow why this change required the try now but it didn't before

Yes, I think it was an oversight because the .then reject wouldn't catch the case when a promise's body wasn't able to be serialized and threw.

gnoff · 2024-03-18T16:39:12Z

packages/react-client/src/ReactFlightReplyClient.js

+            const resolvedModel = init(payload);
+            // We always outline this as a separate part even though we could inline it
+            // because it ensures a more deterministic encoding.
+            pendingParts++;


why isn't this lifted above the try and then not re-incremented in the catch? I assume nothing can throw between here and the decrement but if it did we'd end up with a double increment in the catch if it was a thenable.

mostly I'm asking b/c I think you did this on purpose and I want to know why, not that I think it's wrong per se

We need to keep it incremented when serializing the inner tree since otherwise the inner one can complete if it finishes. There are branches below that doesn't increment so it would require them to remember to decrement.

However I think it's a bug because resolveToJSON can throw in this mode (unlike FlightServer). It's only if it throws promise that it matters though because otherwise we reject the whole thing - and there's nothing that really should support throwing a promise but maybe a Proxy.

Which is a bit strange by itself because it means that we reject creating a payload in this case where as other Flight throws on the receiving side.

This means that if we later shifted this to be streaming (we don't right now mainly because Safari doesn't support it in fetch but also for simplicity), we'd need to change the error handling semantics.

sebmarkbage · 2024-03-19T17:07:23Z

packages/react-client/src/ReactFlightReplyClient.js

+              const lazyId = nextPartId++;
+              const thenable: Thenable<any> = (x: any);
+              thenable.then(
+                partValue => {


Writing a test I found another bug. The resolved value of the thrown promise is not the same as the value if you try it again.

Since we have to recursively call serialization it doesn't make sense to try to outline these. Which means serializing lazy won't be deterministic unfortunately.

…8564) Currently you can accidentally pass React Element to a Server Action. It warns but in prod it actually works because we can encode the symbol and otherwise it's mostly a plain object. It only works if you only pass host components and no function props etc. which makes it potentially error later. The first thing this does it just early hard error for elements. I made Lazy work by unwrapping though since that will be replaced by Promises later which works. Our protocol is not fully symmetric in that elements flow from Server -> Client. Only the Server can resolve Components and only the client should really be able to receive host components. It's not intended that a Server can actually do something with them other than passing them to the client. In the case of a Reply, we expect the client to be stateful. It's waiting for a response. So anything we can't serialize we can still pass by reference to an in memory object. So I introduce the concept of a TemporaryReferenceSet which is an opaque object that you create before encoding the reply. This then stashes any unserializable values in this set and encode the slot by id. When a new response from the Action then returns we pass the same temporary set into the parser which can then restore the objects. This lets you pass a value by reference to the server and back into another slot. For example it can be used to render children inside a parent tree from a server action: ``` export async function Component({ children }) { "use server"; return <div>{children}</div>; } ``` (You wouldn't normally do this due to the waterfalls but for advanced cases.) A common scenario where this comes up accidentally today is in `useActionState`. ``` export function action(state, formData) { "use server"; if (errored) { return <div>This action <strong>errored</strong></div>; } return null; } ``` ``` const [errors, formAction] = useActionState(action); return <div>{errors}<div>; ``` It feels like I'm just passing the JSX from server to client. However, because `useActionState` also sends the previous state *back* to the server this should not actually be valid. Before this PR this actually worked accidentally. You get a DEV warning but it used to work in prod. Once you do something like pass a client reference it won't work tho. We could perhaps make client references work by stashing where we got them from but it wouldn't work with all possible JSX. By adding temporary references to the action implementation this will work again - on the client. It'll also be more efficient since we don't send back the JSX content that you shouldn't introspect on the server anyway. However, a flaw here is that the progressive enhancement of this case won't work because we can't use temporary references for progressive enhancement since there's no in memory stash. What is worse is that it won't error if you hydrate. ~It also will error late in the example above because the first state is "undefined" so invoking the form once works - it errors on the second attempt when it tries to send the error state back again.~ It actually errors on the first invocation because we need to eagerly serialize "previous state" into the form. So at least that's better. I think maybe the solution to this particular pattern would be to allow JSX to serialize if you have no temporary reference set, and remember client references so that client references can be returned back to the server as client references. That way anything you could send from the server could also be returned to the server. But it would only deopt to serializing it for progressive enhancement. The consequence of that would be that there's a lot of JSX that might accidentally seem like it should work but it's only if you've gotten it from the server before that it works. This would have to have pair them somehow though since you can't take a client reference from one implementation of Flight and use it with another. DiffTrain build for [83409a1](83409a1)

…eration (#28611) This a follow up to #28564. It's alternative to #28609 which takes #28610 into account. It used to be possible to return JSX from an action with `useActionState`. ```js async function action(errors, payload) { "use server"; try { ... } catch (x) { return <div>Error message</div>; } } ``` ```js const [errors, formAction] = useActionState(action); return <div>{errors}</div>; ``` Returning JSX from an action is itself not anything problematic. It's that it also has to return the previous state to the action reducer again that's the problem. When this happens we accidentally could serialize an Element back to the server. I fixed this in #28564 so it's now blocked if you don't have a temporary reference set. However, you can't have that for the progressive enhancement case. The reply is eagerly encoded as part of the SSR render. Typically you wouldn't have these in the initial state so the common case is that they show up after the first POST back that yields an error and it's only in the no-JS case where this happens so it's hard to discover. As noted in #28609 there's a security implication with allowing elements to be sent across this kind of payload, so we can't just make it work. When an error happens during SSR our general policy is to try to recover on the client instead. After all, SSR is mainly a perf optimization in React terms and it's not primarily intended for a no JS solution. This PR takes the approach that if we fail to generate the progressive enhancement payload. I.e. if the serialization of previous state / closures throw. Then we fallback to the replaying semantics just client actions instead which will succeed. The effect of this is that this pattern mostly just works: - First render in the typical case doesn't have any JSX in it so it just renders a progressive enhanced form. - If JS fails to hydrate or you click early we do a form POST. If that hits an error and it tries to render it using JSX, then the new page will render successfully - however this time with a Replaying form instead. - If you try to submit the form again it'll have to be using JS. Meaning if you use JSX as the error return value of form state and you make a first attempt that fails, then no JS won't work because either the first or second attempt has to hydrate. We have ideas for potentially optimizing away serializing unused arguments like if you don't actually use previous state which would also solve it but it wouldn't cover all cases such as if it was deeply nested in complex state. Another approach that I considered was to poison the prev state if you passed an element back but let it through to the action but if you try to render the poisoned value, it wouldn't work. The downside of this is when to error. Because in the progressive enhancement case it wouldn't error early but when you actually try to invoke it at which point it would be too late to fallback to client replaying. It would probably have to always error even on the client which is unfortunate since this mostly just works as long as it hydrates.

…eration (#28611) This a follow up to #28564. It's alternative to #28609 which takes #28610 into account. It used to be possible to return JSX from an action with `useActionState`. ```js async function action(errors, payload) { "use server"; try { ... } catch (x) { return <div>Error message</div>; } } ``` ```js const [errors, formAction] = useActionState(action); return <div>{errors}</div>; ``` Returning JSX from an action is itself not anything problematic. It's that it also has to return the previous state to the action reducer again that's the problem. When this happens we accidentally could serialize an Element back to the server. I fixed this in #28564 so it's now blocked if you don't have a temporary reference set. However, you can't have that for the progressive enhancement case. The reply is eagerly encoded as part of the SSR render. Typically you wouldn't have these in the initial state so the common case is that they show up after the first POST back that yields an error and it's only in the no-JS case where this happens so it's hard to discover. As noted in #28609 there's a security implication with allowing elements to be sent across this kind of payload, so we can't just make it work. When an error happens during SSR our general policy is to try to recover on the client instead. After all, SSR is mainly a perf optimization in React terms and it's not primarily intended for a no JS solution. This PR takes the approach that if we fail to generate the progressive enhancement payload. I.e. if the serialization of previous state / closures throw. Then we fallback to the replaying semantics just client actions instead which will succeed. The effect of this is that this pattern mostly just works: - First render in the typical case doesn't have any JSX in it so it just renders a progressive enhanced form. - If JS fails to hydrate or you click early we do a form POST. If that hits an error and it tries to render it using JSX, then the new page will render successfully - however this time with a Replaying form instead. - If you try to submit the form again it'll have to be using JS. Meaning if you use JSX as the error return value of form state and you make a first attempt that fails, then no JS won't work because either the first or second attempt has to hydrate. We have ideas for potentially optimizing away serializing unused arguments like if you don't actually use previous state which would also solve it but it wouldn't cover all cases such as if it was deeply nested in complex state. Another approach that I considered was to poison the prev state if you passed an element back but let it through to the action but if you try to render the poisoned value, it wouldn't work. The downside of this is when to error. Because in the progressive enhancement case it wouldn't error early but when you actually try to invoke it at which point it would be too late to fallback to client replaying. It would probably have to always error even on the client which is unfortunate since this mostly just works as long as it hydrates. DiffTrain build for [fee786a](fee786a)

…cebook#28564) Currently you can accidentally pass React Element to a Server Action. It warns but in prod it actually works because we can encode the symbol and otherwise it's mostly a plain object. It only works if you only pass host components and no function props etc. which makes it potentially error later. The first thing this does it just early hard error for elements. I made Lazy work by unwrapping though since that will be replaced by Promises later which works. Our protocol is not fully symmetric in that elements flow from Server -> Client. Only the Server can resolve Components and only the client should really be able to receive host components. It's not intended that a Server can actually do something with them other than passing them to the client. In the case of a Reply, we expect the client to be stateful. It's waiting for a response. So anything we can't serialize we can still pass by reference to an in memory object. So I introduce the concept of a TemporaryReferenceSet which is an opaque object that you create before encoding the reply. This then stashes any unserializable values in this set and encode the slot by id. When a new response from the Action then returns we pass the same temporary set into the parser which can then restore the objects. This lets you pass a value by reference to the server and back into another slot. For example it can be used to render children inside a parent tree from a server action: ``` export async function Component({ children }) { "use server"; return <div>{children}</div>; } ``` (You wouldn't normally do this due to the waterfalls but for advanced cases.) A common scenario where this comes up accidentally today is in `useActionState`. ``` export function action(state, formData) { "use server"; if (errored) { return <div>This action <strong>errored</strong></div>; } return null; } ``` ``` const [errors, formAction] = useActionState(action); return <div>{errors}<div>; ``` It feels like I'm just passing the JSX from server to client. However, because `useActionState` also sends the previous state *back* to the server this should not actually be valid. Before this PR this actually worked accidentally. You get a DEV warning but it used to work in prod. Once you do something like pass a client reference it won't work tho. We could perhaps make client references work by stashing where we got them from but it wouldn't work with all possible JSX. By adding temporary references to the action implementation this will work again - on the client. It'll also be more efficient since we don't send back the JSX content that you shouldn't introspect on the server anyway. However, a flaw here is that the progressive enhancement of this case won't work because we can't use temporary references for progressive enhancement since there's no in memory stash. What is worse is that it won't error if you hydrate. ~It also will error late in the example above because the first state is "undefined" so invoking the form once works - it errors on the second attempt when it tries to send the error state back again.~ It actually errors on the first invocation because we need to eagerly serialize "previous state" into the form. So at least that's better. I think maybe the solution to this particular pattern would be to allow JSX to serialize if you have no temporary reference set, and remember client references so that client references can be returned back to the server as client references. That way anything you could send from the server could also be returned to the server. But it would only deopt to serializing it for progressive enhancement. The consequence of that would be that there's a lot of JSX that might accidentally seem like it should work but it's only if you've gotten it from the server before that it works. This would have to have pair them somehow though since you can't take a client reference from one implementation of Flight and use it with another.

…eration (facebook#28611) This a follow up to facebook#28564. It's alternative to facebook#28609 which takes facebook#28610 into account. It used to be possible to return JSX from an action with `useActionState`. ```js async function action(errors, payload) { "use server"; try { ... } catch (x) { return <div>Error message</div>; } } ``` ```js const [errors, formAction] = useActionState(action); return <div>{errors}</div>; ``` Returning JSX from an action is itself not anything problematic. It's that it also has to return the previous state to the action reducer again that's the problem. When this happens we accidentally could serialize an Element back to the server. I fixed this in facebook#28564 so it's now blocked if you don't have a temporary reference set. However, you can't have that for the progressive enhancement case. The reply is eagerly encoded as part of the SSR render. Typically you wouldn't have these in the initial state so the common case is that they show up after the first POST back that yields an error and it's only in the no-JS case where this happens so it's hard to discover. As noted in facebook#28609 there's a security implication with allowing elements to be sent across this kind of payload, so we can't just make it work. When an error happens during SSR our general policy is to try to recover on the client instead. After all, SSR is mainly a perf optimization in React terms and it's not primarily intended for a no JS solution. This PR takes the approach that if we fail to generate the progressive enhancement payload. I.e. if the serialization of previous state / closures throw. Then we fallback to the replaying semantics just client actions instead which will succeed. The effect of this is that this pattern mostly just works: - First render in the typical case doesn't have any JSX in it so it just renders a progressive enhanced form. - If JS fails to hydrate or you click early we do a form POST. If that hits an error and it tries to render it using JSX, then the new page will render successfully - however this time with a Replaying form instead. - If you try to submit the form again it'll have to be using JS. Meaning if you use JSX as the error return value of form state and you make a first attempt that fails, then no JS won't work because either the first or second attempt has to hydrate. We have ideas for potentially optimizing away serializing unused arguments like if you don't actually use previous state which would also solve it but it wouldn't cover all cases such as if it was deeply nested in complex state. Another approach that I considered was to poison the prev state if you passed an element back but let it through to the action but if you try to render the poisoned value, it wouldn't work. The downside of this is when to error. Because in the progressive enhancement case it wouldn't error early but when you actually try to invoke it at which point it would be too late to fallback to client replaying. It would probably have to always error even on the client which is unfortunate since this mostly just works as long as it hydrates.

…8564) Currently you can accidentally pass React Element to a Server Action. It warns but in prod it actually works because we can encode the symbol and otherwise it's mostly a plain object. It only works if you only pass host components and no function props etc. which makes it potentially error later. The first thing this does it just early hard error for elements. I made Lazy work by unwrapping though since that will be replaced by Promises later which works. Our protocol is not fully symmetric in that elements flow from Server -> Client. Only the Server can resolve Components and only the client should really be able to receive host components. It's not intended that a Server can actually do something with them other than passing them to the client. In the case of a Reply, we expect the client to be stateful. It's waiting for a response. So anything we can't serialize we can still pass by reference to an in memory object. So I introduce the concept of a TemporaryReferenceSet which is an opaque object that you create before encoding the reply. This then stashes any unserializable values in this set and encode the slot by id. When a new response from the Action then returns we pass the same temporary set into the parser which can then restore the objects. This lets you pass a value by reference to the server and back into another slot. For example it can be used to render children inside a parent tree from a server action: ``` export async function Component({ children }) { "use server"; return <div>{children}</div>; } ``` (You wouldn't normally do this due to the waterfalls but for advanced cases.) A common scenario where this comes up accidentally today is in `useActionState`. ``` export function action(state, formData) { "use server"; if (errored) { return <div>This action <strong>errored</strong></div>; } return null; } ``` ``` const [errors, formAction] = useActionState(action); return <div>{errors}<div>; ``` It feels like I'm just passing the JSX from server to client. However, because `useActionState` also sends the previous state *back* to the server this should not actually be valid. Before this PR this actually worked accidentally. You get a DEV warning but it used to work in prod. Once you do something like pass a client reference it won't work tho. We could perhaps make client references work by stashing where we got them from but it wouldn't work with all possible JSX. By adding temporary references to the action implementation this will work again - on the client. It'll also be more efficient since we don't send back the JSX content that you shouldn't introspect on the server anyway. However, a flaw here is that the progressive enhancement of this case won't work because we can't use temporary references for progressive enhancement since there's no in memory stash. What is worse is that it won't error if you hydrate. ~It also will error late in the example above because the first state is "undefined" so invoking the form once works - it errors on the second attempt when it tries to send the error state back again.~ It actually errors on the first invocation because we need to eagerly serialize "previous state" into the form. So at least that's better. I think maybe the solution to this particular pattern would be to allow JSX to serialize if you have no temporary reference set, and remember client references so that client references can be returned back to the server as client references. That way anything you could send from the server could also be returned to the server. But it would only deopt to serializing it for progressive enhancement. The consequence of that would be that there's a lot of JSX that might accidentally seem like it should work but it's only if you've gotten it from the server before that it works. This would have to have pair them somehow though since you can't take a client reference from one implementation of Flight and use it with another. DiffTrain build for commit 83409a1.

This playwright test is using the Flight Fixture to demonstrate the Flight Reply equivalent of the scenario that was fixed in facebook#30528 for the Flight Client. It's basically an advanced case of what was outlined in facebook#28564, returning a client component from a server action that is used in `useActionState`. In addition, the client component uses another element twice, which leads to the element's props being deduped. Resolving those references needs to be handled specifically, both in the Flight Client (done in facebook#30528), as well as in the temporary references of the Flight Reply Client (and possibly Flight Reply Server?). The test should probably be converted into a unit test, e.g. in `packages/react-server-dom-webpack/src/__tests__/ReactFlightDOMBrowser-test.js` or `packages/react-server-dom-webpack/src/__tests__/ReactFlightDOMReply-test.js`.

sebmarkbage requested a review from gnoff March 15, 2024 17:45

facebook-github-bot added CLA Signed React Core Team Opened by a member of the React Core Team labels Mar 15, 2024

sebmarkbage commented Mar 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

sebmarkbage force-pushed the replychildren branch from e0dec33 to 7a52f2c Compare March 15, 2024 18:11

shuding reviewed Mar 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

gnoff approved these changes Mar 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

sebmarkbage commented Mar 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

sebmarkbage force-pushed the replychildren branch from a55a5bd to dee18bb Compare March 19, 2024 18:11

sebmarkbage added 2 commits March 19, 2024 14:11

Support Lazy but error if an element is passed to a Reply

997dbb4

Temporary references

07edd52

sebmarkbage force-pushed the replychildren branch from dee18bb to 5b889b4 Compare March 19, 2024 18:11

Fix ref counting bug and retry of thrown promises

76c9ab3

sebmarkbage force-pushed the replychildren branch from 5b889b4 to 76c9ab3 Compare March 19, 2024 19:44

sebmarkbage merged commit 83409a1 into facebook:main Mar 19, 2024
37 of 38 checks passed

This was referenced Mar 21, 2024

[DO NOT LAND] Allow Previously Seen Client References to be Passed Back to a Reply #28609

Closed

[Fizz] Recover from errors thrown by progressive enhancement form generation #28611

Merged

ztanner mentioned this pull request Mar 21, 2024

Update React from 6c3b8dbfe to a4939017f vercel/next.js#63413

Closed

gnoff mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2024

Update React from 14898b6a9 to e373190fa vercel/next.js#63685

Closed

sebmarkbage mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2024

Add React.useActionState #28491

Merged

eps1lon mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2024

Update React from 14898b6a9 to c3048aab4 vercel/next.js#64798

Merged

eps1lon mentioned this pull request May 21, 2024

Use temporary references in Replies vercel/next.js#66054

Closed

hi-ogawa mentioned this pull request Jul 5, 2024

test: test action returning components hi-ogawa/vite-plugins#503

Merged

unstubbable mentioned this pull request Jul 31, 2024

Add failing end-to-end test for an action that returns client components #30550

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[Flight] Encode React Elements in Replies as Temporary References #28564

[Flight] Encode React Elements in Replies as Temporary References #28564

sebmarkbage commented Mar 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sebmarkbage Mar 15, 2024

unstubbable commented Mar 15, 2024

shuding Mar 17, 2024

sebmarkbage Mar 19, 2024

gnoff Mar 18, 2024

sebmarkbage Mar 19, 2024

gnoff Mar 18, 2024

sebmarkbage Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sebmarkbage Mar 19, 2024

sebmarkbage Mar 19, 2024

[Flight] Encode React Elements in Replies as Temporary References #28564

[Flight] Encode React Elements in Replies as Temporary References #28564

Conversation

sebmarkbage commented Mar 15, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

unstubbable commented Mar 15, 2024

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

sebmarkbage Mar 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sebmarkbage commented Mar 15, 2024 •

edited

Loading

sebmarkbage Mar 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading