docs(upgrading): document RecursiveQuery schema field in upgrade guide by AlvaroBalbin · Pull Request #23991 · apache/datafusion

AlvaroBalbin · 2026-07-30T08:47:05Z

Adding the schema field to RecursiveQuery broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to RecursiveQuery::try_new. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on branch-54 for 54.2.0 is still an open question.

I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit.

Fixes#23886.

alamb

Thank you @AlvaroBalbin

codecov-commenter · 2026-08-08T11:16:56Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.26%. Comparing base (041a716) to head (0146269).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #23991 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 81.26% 81.26% =======================================
Files 1110 1110 Lines 384907 384890 -17 Branches 384907 384890 -17 =======================================
- Hits 312808 312796 -12 + Misses 53634 53626 -8 - Partials 18465 18468 +3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:34Z

I merged up to resolve a conflict

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:43Z

Thanks again @AlvaroBalbin

alamb · 2026-08-15T11:07:10Z

the CI seems to have failed due to an infrastrucure error -- I restarted it

apache#23991) Adding the `schema` field to `RecursiveQuery` broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to `RecursiveQuery::try_new`. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on `branch-54` for 54.2.0 is still an open question. I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit. Fixesapache#23886. Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>

AlvaroBalbin · 2026-07-30T08:47:05Z

Adding the schema field to RecursiveQuery broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to RecursiveQuery::try_new. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on branch-54 for 54.2.0 is still an open question.

I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit.

Fixes#23886.

alamb

Thank you @AlvaroBalbin

codecov-commenter · 2026-08-08T11:16:56Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.26%. Comparing base (041a716) to head (0146269).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #23991 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 81.26% 81.26% =======================================
Files 1110 1110 Lines 384907 384890 -17 Branches 384907 384890 -17 =======================================
- Hits 312808 312796 -12 + Misses 53634 53626 -8 - Partials 18465 18468 +3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:34Z

I merged up to resolve a conflict

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:43Z

Thanks again @AlvaroBalbin

alamb · 2026-08-15T11:07:10Z

the CI seems to have failed due to an infrastrucure error -- I restarted it

apache#23991) Adding the `schema` field to `RecursiveQuery` broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to `RecursiveQuery::try_new`. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on `branch-54` for 54.2.0 is still an open question. I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit. Fixesapache#23886. Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>

AlvaroBalbin · 2026-07-30T08:47:05Z

Adding the schema field to RecursiveQuery broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to RecursiveQuery::try_new. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on branch-54 for 54.2.0 is still an open question.

I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit.

Fixes#23886.

alamb

Thank you @AlvaroBalbin

codecov-commenter · 2026-08-08T11:16:56Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.26%. Comparing base (041a716) to head (0146269).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #23991 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 81.26% 81.26% =======================================
Files 1110 1110 Lines 384907 384890 -17 Branches 384907 384890 -17 =======================================
- Hits 312808 312796 -12 + Misses 53634 53626 -8 - Partials 18465 18468 +3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:34Z

I merged up to resolve a conflict

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:43Z

Thanks again @AlvaroBalbin

alamb · 2026-08-15T11:07:10Z

the CI seems to have failed due to an infrastrucure error -- I restarted it

apache#23991) Adding the `schema` field to `RecursiveQuery` broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to `RecursiveQuery::try_new`. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on `branch-54` for 54.2.0 is still an open question. I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit. Fixesapache#23886. Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>

AlvaroBalbin · 2026-07-30T08:47:05Z

Adding the schema field to RecursiveQuery broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to RecursiveQuery::try_new. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on branch-54 for 54.2.0 is still an open question.

I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit.

Fixes#23886.

alamb

Thank you @AlvaroBalbin

codecov-commenter · 2026-08-08T11:16:56Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.26%. Comparing base (041a716) to head (0146269).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #23991 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 81.26% 81.26% =======================================
Files 1110 1110 Lines 384907 384890 -17 Branches 384907 384890 -17 =======================================
- Hits 312808 312796 -12 + Misses 53634 53626 -8 - Partials 18465 18468 +3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:34Z

I merged up to resolve a conflict

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:43Z

Thanks again @AlvaroBalbin

alamb · 2026-08-15T11:07:10Z

the CI seems to have failed due to an infrastrucure error -- I restarted it

apache#23991) Adding the `schema` field to `RecursiveQuery` broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to `RecursiveQuery::try_new`. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on `branch-54` for 54.2.0 is still an open question. I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit. Fixesapache#23886. Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>

AlvaroBalbin · 2026-07-30T08:47:05Z

Adding the schema field to RecursiveQuery broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to RecursiveQuery::try_new. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on branch-54 for 54.2.0 is still an open question.

I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit.

Fixes#23886.

alamb

Thank you @AlvaroBalbin

codecov-commenter · 2026-08-08T11:16:56Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.26%. Comparing base (041a716) to head (0146269).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #23991 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 81.26% 81.26% =======================================
Files 1110 1110 Lines 384907 384890 -17 Branches 384907 384890 -17 =======================================
- Hits 312808 312796 -12 + Misses 53634 53626 -8 - Partials 18465 18468 +3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:34Z

I merged up to resolve a conflict

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:43Z

Thanks again @AlvaroBalbin

alamb · 2026-08-15T11:07:10Z

the CI seems to have failed due to an infrastrucure error -- I restarted it

apache#23991) Adding the `schema` field to `RecursiveQuery` broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to `RecursiveQuery::try_new`. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on `branch-54` for 54.2.0 is still an open question. I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit. Fixesapache#23886. Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>

AlvaroBalbin · 2026-07-30T08:47:05Z

Adding the schema field to RecursiveQuery broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to RecursiveQuery::try_new. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on branch-54 for 54.2.0 is still an open question.

I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit.

Fixes#23886.

alamb

Thank you @AlvaroBalbin

codecov-commenter · 2026-08-08T11:16:56Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.26%. Comparing base (041a716) to head (0146269).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #23991 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 81.26% 81.26% =======================================
Files 1110 1110 Lines 384907 384890 -17 Branches 384907 384890 -17 =======================================
- Hits 312808 312796 -12 + Misses 53634 53626 -8 - Partials 18465 18468 +3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:34Z

I merged up to resolve a conflict

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:43Z

Thanks again @AlvaroBalbin

alamb · 2026-08-15T11:07:10Z

the CI seems to have failed due to an infrastrucure error -- I restarted it

apache#23991) Adding the `schema` field to `RecursiveQuery` broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to `RecursiveQuery::try_new`. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on `branch-54` for 54.2.0 is still an open question. I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit. Fixesapache#23886. Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>

AlvaroBalbin · 2026-07-30T08:47:05Z

Adding the schema field to RecursiveQuery broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to RecursiveQuery::try_new. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on branch-54 for 54.2.0 is still an open question.

I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit.

Fixes#23886.

alamb

Thank you @AlvaroBalbin

codecov-commenter · 2026-08-08T11:16:56Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.26%. Comparing base (041a716) to head (0146269).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #23991 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 81.26% 81.26% =======================================
Files 1110 1110 Lines 384907 384890 -17 Branches 384907 384890 -17 =======================================
- Hits 312808 312796 -12 + Misses 53634 53626 -8 - Partials 18465 18468 +3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:34Z

I merged up to resolve a conflict

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:43Z

Thanks again @AlvaroBalbin

alamb · 2026-08-15T11:07:10Z

the CI seems to have failed due to an infrastrucure error -- I restarted it

apache#23991) Adding the `schema` field to `RecursiveQuery` broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to `RecursiveQuery::try_new`. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on `branch-54` for 54.2.0 is still an open question. I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit. Fixesapache#23886. Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>

AlvaroBalbin · 2026-07-30T08:47:05Z

Adding the schema field to RecursiveQuery broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to RecursiveQuery::try_new. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on branch-54 for 54.2.0 is still an open question.

I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit.

Fixes#23886.

alamb

Thank you @AlvaroBalbin

codecov-commenter · 2026-08-08T11:16:56Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.26%. Comparing base (041a716) to head (0146269).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #23991 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 81.26% 81.26% =======================================
Files 1110 1110 Lines 384907 384890 -17 Branches 384907 384890 -17 =======================================
- Hits 312808 312796 -12 + Misses 53634 53626 -8 - Partials 18465 18468 +3

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:34Z

I merged up to resolve a conflict

alamb · 2026-08-11T20:49:43Z

Thanks again @AlvaroBalbin

alamb · 2026-08-15T11:07:10Z

the CI seems to have failed due to an infrastrucure error -- I restarted it

apache#23991) Adding the `schema` field to `RecursiveQuery` broke downstream code that built the node with a struct literal, and the change was never written up for people upgrading. I added an upgrade guide entry for 55.0.0 that describes what changed, notes it also shipped in 54.1.0 so users on the 54 series find it, and shows how to move to `RecursiveQuery::try_new`. It is documentation only, so whether to revert the change on `branch-54` for 54.2.0 is still an open question. I pushed this to my fork first and the project's own CI workflows pass on the commit. Fixesapache#23886. Co-authored-by: Andrew Lamb <andrew@nerdnetworks.org>

Document RecursiveQuery schema field in upgrade guide
ef91e24

github-actionsBot added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jul 30, 2026

alamb approved these changes Aug 8, 2026
View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'apache/main' into fix-issue-23886
0146269

alamb enabled auto-merge August 11, 2026 20:49

alamb added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 15, 2026

Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit bb45fb8Aug 15, 2026
62 of 63 checks passed

Document RecursiveQuery schema field in upgrade guide
ef91e24

github-actionsBot added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jul 30, 2026

alamb approved these changes Aug 8, 2026
View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'apache/main' into fix-issue-23886
0146269

alamb enabled auto-merge August 11, 2026 20:49

alamb added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 15, 2026

Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit bb45fb8Aug 15, 2026
62 of 63 checks passed

Document RecursiveQuery schema field in upgrade guide
ef91e24

github-actionsBot added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jul 30, 2026

alamb approved these changes Aug 8, 2026
View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'apache/main' into fix-issue-23886
0146269

alamb enabled auto-merge August 11, 2026 20:49

alamb added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 15, 2026

Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit bb45fb8Aug 15, 2026
62 of 63 checks passed

Document RecursiveQuery schema field in upgrade guide
ef91e24

github-actionsBot added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jul 30, 2026

alamb approved these changes Aug 8, 2026
View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'apache/main' into fix-issue-23886
0146269

alamb enabled auto-merge August 11, 2026 20:49

alamb added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 15, 2026

Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit bb45fb8Aug 15, 2026
62 of 63 checks passed

Document RecursiveQuery schema field in upgrade guide
ef91e24

github-actionsBot added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jul 30, 2026

alamb approved these changes Aug 8, 2026
View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'apache/main' into fix-issue-23886
0146269

alamb enabled auto-merge August 11, 2026 20:49

alamb added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 15, 2026

Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit bb45fb8Aug 15, 2026
62 of 63 checks passed

Document RecursiveQuery schema field in upgrade guide
ef91e24

github-actionsBot added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jul 30, 2026

alamb approved these changes Aug 8, 2026
View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'apache/main' into fix-issue-23886
0146269

alamb enabled auto-merge August 11, 2026 20:49

alamb added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 15, 2026

Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit bb45fb8Aug 15, 2026
62 of 63 checks passed

Document RecursiveQuery schema field in upgrade guide
ef91e24

github-actionsBot added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jul 30, 2026

alamb approved these changes Aug 8, 2026
View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'apache/main' into fix-issue-23886
0146269

alamb enabled auto-merge August 11, 2026 20:49

alamb added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 15, 2026

Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit bb45fb8Aug 15, 2026
62 of 63 checks passed

Document RecursiveQuery schema field in upgrade guide
ef91e24

github-actionsBot added the documentation Improvements or additions to documentation label Jul 30, 2026

alamb approved these changes Aug 8, 2026
View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'apache/main' into fix-issue-23886
0146269

alamb enabled auto-merge August 11, 2026 20:49

alamb added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 15, 2026

Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit bb45fb8Aug 15, 2026
62 of 63 checks passed

Uh oh!

Conversation

AlvaroBalbin commented Jul 30, 2026

Uh oh!

alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

alamb commented Aug 11, 2026

Uh oh!

alamb commented Aug 11, 2026

Uh oh!

alamb commented Aug 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

AlvaroBalbin commented Jul 30, 2026

Uh oh!

alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

alamb commented Aug 11, 2026

Uh oh!

alamb commented Aug 11, 2026

Uh oh!

alamb commented Aug 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

AlvaroBalbin commented Jul 30, 2026

Uh oh!

alamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2026• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

alamb commented Aug 11, 2026

Uh oh!

alamb commented Aug 11, 2026

Uh oh!

alamb commented Aug 15, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2026•
edited
Loading

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2026•
edited
Loading

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2026•
edited
Loading

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2026•
edited
Loading

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2026•
edited
Loading