feat: Added HMAC-SHA256 signature method in OAuthHmacSha256Signer #703

svonduhn · 2021-06-18T20:10:38Z

I have added OAuthHmacSha256Signer to enable using the signature method to HMAC-SHA256.

Unit test/code coverage has been added in OAuthHmacSha256SignerTest.

This change is necessary for establishing connections to NetSuite as they will no longer accept HMAC-SHA1 as a signature method.

Fixes #702 ☕️

This pull request should be close and replaced by #711. There were issues with the original commit email, and I was unable to resolve them by rebasing (a few of the commits did not get rebased correctly).

elharo · 2021-06-18T20:33:35Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSigner.java

@@ -32,14 +34,34 @@
 @Beta
 public final class OAuthHmacSigner implements OAuthSigner {

+  private final Map<String, String> signatureMethodMap = ImmutableMap.of(
+          "HMAC-SHA1", "HmacSHA1",


I don't understand why you need both the keys and the values here.

Good question. The signature method that need to be used for the OAuth 1.0 header has to be of the format: "HMAC-SHA1" or "HMAC-SHA2", while the actual Algorithm strings that Java requires have to be of the format "HmacSHA1" or "HmacSHA256" as described here: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/specs/security/standard-names.html#mac-algorithms.

My intent was to use a Map to associate the signature method as the key with the corresponding algorithm as the value, so there would not be an accidental mismatch.

this has been reverted back in favor of a new class

elharo · 2021-06-18T20:33:59Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSigner.java

+
+  /** Set the signature method.  Valid signature methods are "HMAC-SHA1" and "HMAC-SHA256" */
+  public void setSignatureMethod(String signatureMethod) throws IllegalArgumentException {
+    if (signatureMethodMap.containsKey(signatureMethod)) {


Maybe use an enum instead?

this has been reverted back in favor of a new class

elharo · 2021-06-18T20:34:52Z

google-oauth-client/src/test/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSignerTest.java

@@ -32,4 +35,39 @@ public void testComputeSignature() throws GeneralSecurityException {
    signer.tokenSharedSecret = "def";
    assertEquals(EXPECTED_SIGNATURE, signer.computeSignature("foo"));
  }
+
+  public void testComputeSignatureHmacSha256() throws GeneralSecurityException {
+    final OAuthHmacSigner signer = new OAuthHmacSigner();


Google style specifies no final on local variables except where required

this has been reverted back in favor of a new class

elharo · 2021-06-18T20:35:19Z

google-oauth-client/src/test/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSignerTest.java

+
+  public void testSetSignatureMethodHmacMD5() {
+    assertThrows(
+            "Signature method HMAC-MD5 not available",


four space indents for continuation lines, per Google style guide

this has been reverted back in favor of a new class

elharo

perhaps HMAC-SHA256 should be a separate class? I'm not sure.

elharo · 2021-06-18T20:36:53Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSigner.java

@@ -32,14 +34,34 @@
 @Beta
 public final class OAuthHmacSigner implements OAuthSigner {


class doc comment needs to be updated

this has been reverted back in favor of a new class

svonduhn · 2021-06-18T23:33:32Z

perhaps HMAC-SHA256 should be a separate class? I'm not sure.

I think you may be right about having a separate class. I was trying not to repeat code in a class that would be similar in every way except for three lines, but having a separate class makes a lot of sense, particularly since this is likely to be a special use case signing class, only needed for a few services. I am going to refactor this as a separate class and see if that is simpler.

elharo · 2021-06-19T11:04:32Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2010 Google Inc.


Needs current copyright date, Inc. --> LLC

and never, ever use (c) in anything, here or elsewhere. It is not recognized by the law, no matter how many places you find it.

this has been updated

elharo · 2021-06-19T11:05:20Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+ * {@link Beta} <br>
+ * OAuth {@code "HMAC-SHA256"} signature method.
+ */
+@Beta


auth leader (not me) needs to figure out if we want this and if it should be beta

Since the interface the OAuthSigner interface itself is Beta I took that as a signal that any classes implementing it should also be Beta.

Either way annotation might be enough. Is there a reason to include this in doc comment too?

removed this from the doc comment

elharo · 2021-06-19T11:05:37Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+public final class OAuthHmacSha256Signer implements OAuthSigner {
+
+  /** Client-shared secret or {@code null} for none. */
+  public String clientSharedSecret;


private on fields please

I can make these fields private, but then will also need to add accessors/mutators. I noticed in the original class (OAuthHmacSigner) these fields were public and had no methods to get/set the values. Do we want to have this signing class implemented differently from the other on that it is based on? Existing code using OAuthHmacSigner that needs to migrate to this class would have fewer code changes keeping it the same, but then the API was labelled Beta.

mutable public fields are a hard no. Don't try to be consistent with bad code. You can probably make these final with no mutators.

The client secret and the token secret probably shouldn't be final, as there is often a multi-step flow to obtain the values in separate steps, so they need to be set after the signer instance is created in most instances.

Also, in looking at the other code required for making a call, the OAuthParameters class will still have mutable public fields (similar to OAuthHmacSigner), and it is necessary to use that class together with the signer, to make a complete OAuth 1.0 signed request:

Current code needed for HMAC-SHA1:

OAuthHmacSigner hmacSha1Signer = new OAuthHmacSigner(); hmacSha1Signer.clientSharedSecret = CLIENT_SECRET; hmacSha1Signer.tokenSharedSecret = TOKEN_SECRET; OAuthParameters oauthParameters = new OAuthParameters(); oauthParameters.signer = hmacSha1Signer; oauthParameters.consumerKey = CONSUMER_KEY; oauthParameters.token = ACCESS_TOKEN; HttpRequestFactory requestFactory = new NetHttpTransport().createRequestFactory(oauthParameters);

Making the fields on the new class private with setters would make the code look like this:

New code needed for HMAC-SHA256:

OAuthHmacSha256Signer hmacSha256Signer = new OAuthHmacSha256Signer(); hmacSha256Signer.setClientSecret(CLIENT_SECRET); hmacSha256Signer.setTokenSecret(TOKEN_SECRET); OAuthParameters oauthParameters = new OAuthParameters(); oauthParameters.signer = hmacSha256Signer; oauthParameters.consumerKey = CONSUMER_KEY; oauthParameters.token = ACCESS_TOKEN; HttpRequestFactory requestFactory = new NetHttpTransport().createRequestFactory(oauthParameters);

It feels a little bit inconsistent this way, even though this is arguably the better way. Should anything be done about OAuthParameters ? I'd normally not change something if it isn't necessary.

I made the fields private, with setter methods.

elharo · 2021-06-19T11:05:47Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+  public String clientSharedSecret;
+
+  /** Token-shared secret or {@code null} for none. */
+  public String tokenSharedSecret;


ditto, also make final

I made the field private, but not final, due to OAuth 1.0 frequently setting these values in multiple steps of the flow, so they cannot always be set during construction.

elharo · 2021-06-19T11:06:04Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+
+  public String computeSignature(String signatureBaseString) throws GeneralSecurityException {
+    // compute key
+    StringBuilder keyBuf = new StringBuilder();


keyBuffer

Google style never abbreviates

this has been updated

elharo · 2021-06-19T11:06:23Z

...e-oauth-client/src/test/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256SignerTest.java

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2012 Google Inc.


fix copyright

this has been updated

elharo · 2021-06-19T11:06:37Z

...e-oauth-client/src/test/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256SignerTest.java

+package com.google.api.client.auth.oauth;
+
+import java.security.GeneralSecurityException;
+import junit.framework.TestCase;


org.junit preferred

The POM file only has the current junit dependency (junit:junit:4.13.2). I can switch to a different junit, but that would require adding a new dependency. Which group/artifact/version org.junit package is the preferred one to add and use?

junit.* is the old legacy classes. org.junit are the new ones from JUnit 4.

Thank you, I misunderstood. I updated the test to use org.junit / JUnit4

elharo · 2021-06-19T15:44:05Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+public final class OAuthHmacSha256Signer implements OAuthSigner {
+
+  /** Client-shared secret or {@code null} for none. */
+  public String clientSharedSecret;


mutable public fields are a hard no. Don't try to be consistent with bad code. You can probably make these final with no mutators.

elharo · 2021-06-19T15:44:30Z

...e-oauth-client/src/test/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256SignerTest.java

+package com.google.api.client.auth.oauth;
+
+import java.security.GeneralSecurityException;
+import junit.framework.TestCase;


junit.* is the old legacy classes. org.junit are the new ones from JUnit 4.

elharo · 2021-06-29T16:04:08Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+ * {@link Beta} <br>
+ * OAuth {@code "HMAC-SHA256"} signature method.
+ */
+@Beta


Either way annotation might be enough. Is there a reason to include this in doc comment too?

elharo · 2021-06-29T16:05:38Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+    tokenSharedSecret = tokenSecret;
+  }
+
+  public String getSignatureMethod() {


@Override

This has been updated. Strangely, the annotation did not exist in the original implementing class.

elharo · 2021-06-29T16:05:42Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+    return "HMAC-SHA256";
+  }
+
+  public String computeSignature(String signatureBaseString) throws GeneralSecurityException {


@Override

This has been updated. Strangely, the annotation did not exist in the original implementing class.

elharo · 2021-06-29T16:06:43Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+  /** Token secret */
+  private String tokenSharedSecret;
+
+  public void setClientSecret(String clientSecret) {


Why are these mutable? It makes the class not thread-safe.

The client secret can be final, so I did change it, however the token secret usually is not known until after the first request of the three-legged OAuth 1.0 authorization flow. Because of that, it needs to be able to be set later. This is common for OAuth 1.0, as it is a multi-step process where not all of the values are known prior to the first step.

The token secret will usually be set to the final value only once during the authorization flow, before the second step, and never changed again.

elharo · 2021-06-29T16:07:01Z

...e-oauth-client/src/test/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256SignerTest.java

+  private static final String EXPECTED_SIGNATURE = "xDJIQbKJTwGumZFvSG1V3ctym2tz6kD8fKGWPr5ImPU=";
+
+  @Test
+  public void testComputeSignature() throws GeneralSecurityException {


if mutability is deliberate it should be tested.

New tests have been added to cover the null cases

elharo · 2021-06-29T16:07:49Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+    }
+    keyBuffer.append('&');
+    String tokenSecret = tokenSharedSecret;
+    if (tokenSecret != null) {


this branch is not tested when tokenSecret is null

New tests have been added to cover the cases when tokenSecret is null

elharo · 2021-06-29T16:08:03Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+    // compute key
+    StringBuilder keyBuffer = new StringBuilder();
+    String clientSecret = clientSharedSecret;
+    if (clientSecret != null) {


this branch is not tested when clientSecret is null

New tests have been added to cover the cases when clientSecret is null

elharo · 2021-06-29T16:08:38Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+  public String computeSignature(String signatureBaseString) throws GeneralSecurityException {
+    // compute key
+    StringBuilder keyBuffer = new StringBuilder();
+    String clientSecret = clientSharedSecret;


I don't see why you copy into a local variable here.

No need, it was simply in the original class that way. I have eliminated the local variable.

elharo · 2021-06-29T16:08:47Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+      keyBuffer.append(OAuthParameters.escape(clientSecret));
+    }
+    keyBuffer.append('&');
+    String tokenSecret = tokenSharedSecret;


I don't see why you copy into a local variable here.

No need, it was simply in the original class that way. I have eliminated the local variable.

elharo · 2021-06-29T18:53:53Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+  private String tokenSharedSecret;
+
+  public void setTokenSecret(String tokenSecret) {
+    tokenSharedSecret = tokenSecret;


This should probably fail if the existing field is not null. Or does it need to be reset? What do you think?

There is a legitimate case for swapping a temporary token for a permanent token. That is a common scenario in OAuth 1.0

OK. Can you add a test for this?

elharo · 2021-06-29T18:54:16Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+  }
+
+  public OAuthHmacSha256Signer(String clientSecret) {
+    this.clientSharedSecret = clientSecret;


does it make sense for this field to be null?

In reality, no, this should never be null. I have worked with other OAuth libraries, though, and none of them actually validate that this is non-null. However, if any code sets this to be null, then the OAuth calls will be completely non-functional, failing to authenticate. Setting this to a valid string is critical to OAuth working at all. None of the other signer classes do any validation of these (in fact, they are just public variables), and we could be more restrictive here, but in practice this will have to be set to a vlid value or the authentication simply won't work.

Let's check for null then? It dies not break anything and adds value of failing early.

elharo · 2021-06-29T18:54:38Z

google-oauth-client/src/main/java/com/google/api/client/auth/oauth/OAuthHmacSha256Signer.java

+      keyBuffer.append(OAuthParameters.escape(clientSharedSecret));
+    }
+    keyBuffer.append('&');
+    if (tokenSharedSecret != null) {


It's OK for this to be omitted?

Yes, the token secret can be null, a blank string, or even a temporary token for the first call of the authorization flow. It is intended to be replaced/updated with a permanent token after the initial call.

TimurSadykov · 2021-07-14T19:10:48Z

@svonduhn Please sign the cla, it is required for all the contributors. Here is the instruction: https://opensource.google/docs/cla/#external-contributors

svonduhn · 2021-07-21T13:03:48Z

@svonduhn Please sign the cla, it is required for all the contributors. Here is the instruction: https://opensource.google/docs/cla/#external-contributors

@TimurSadykov I signed the CLA here: https://cla.developers.google.com/clas/edit?id=111692684224848719787&kind=KIND_INDIVIDUAL&domain=DOMAIN_GOOGLE

I also added the Google CLA GitHub App to my GitHub account, but I am not sure what else needs to be done to get the pull request to recognize the CLA. Is there something additional needed?

svonduhn · 2021-07-21T13:04:35Z

@googlebot rescan

google-cla · 2021-07-21T13:04:44Z

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for all the commit author(s) or Co-authors. If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.
In order to pass this check, please resolve this problem and then comment @googlebot I fixed it.. If the bot doesn't comment, it means it doesn't think anything has changed.

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

TimurSadykov · 2021-08-05T09:34:27Z

@svonduhn Hey, sorry for delay. I see what is happening. I can see that your GitHub login has CLA signed. However, it seems like you made a commit using different email, that is not associated with your account: svonduhn@commercehub.com

Please try to add that email to you GitHub account and then rescan.

…h-java-client into HMAC-SHA256

google-cla · 2021-08-05T12:55:43Z

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for all the commit author(s) or Co-authors. If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.
In order to pass this check, please resolve this problem and then comment @googlebot I fixed it.. If the bot doesn't comment, it means it doesn't think anything has changed.

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

svonduhn · 2021-08-05T13:10:03Z

@TimurSadykov you are right, the commits were made with the wrong email address. The only problem I have now is that when I try to add that email address to my account, it says that it is already associated with a different Google account (which it should not be, but that is the error I am getting). Because of that, it seems that I can't actually fix the issue.

Would it be reasonable (acceptable) to simply create a new pull request with these changes using the correct email address, and close this one? My apologies for the trouble. I have updated my .gitconfig to prevent this from happening in the future.

Let me know how best to proceed. Thank you.

TimurSadykov · 2021-08-05T14:00:19Z

@svonduhn There are a couple of options:

interactive rebase (get rebase -i master). Don't merge master into the branch before rebase. This way you will rebase all the commits using your account. This should fix CLA.
A new PR as you suggested. The downside here is that @elharo will have harder time to check that all the comments were addressed :) Please provide a link to previous PR in the description of the new one if you go this way.

…h-java-client into HMAC-SHA256

google-cla · 2021-08-05T14:23:32Z

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request), but were unable to find agreements for all the commit author(s) or Co-authors. If you authored these, maybe you used a different email address in the git commits than was used to sign the CLA (login here to double check)? If these were authored by someone else, then they will need to sign a CLA as well, and confirm that they're okay with these being contributed to Google.
In order to pass this check, please resolve this problem and then comment @googlebot I fixed it.. If the bot doesn't comment, it means it doesn't think anything has changed.

ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info.

svonduhn · 2021-08-05T14:55:01Z

@elharo @TimurSadykov This pull request should be closed and replaced by #711. There were issues with my original commit email, and I was unable to resolve them via an interactive rebase (a few of the commits did not get rebased correctly).

I do apologize for the trouble. The new pull request does appear to be passing the CLA check now. Thank you for your time!

svonduhn · 2021-08-11T22:45:46Z

closing, as this was included in PR #711, which has been merged.

svonduhn-chub added 2 commits June 18, 2021 15:48

Added support for changing the signature method in the OAuthHmacSigner

28a5c9b

Added javadoc comments for setter

4b0cede

svonduhn requested a review from a team as a code owner June 18, 2021 20:10

google-cla bot added the cla: no This human has *not* signed the Contributor License Agreement. label Jun 18, 2021

svonduhn changed the title ~~Added support for changing the signature method in the OAuthHmacSigner~~ feat: Added support for changing the signature method in the OAuthHmacSigner Jun 18, 2021

elharo reviewed Jun 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

elharo requested a review from silvolu June 18, 2021 20:35

elharo reviewed Jun 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

svonduhn-chub added 2 commits June 18, 2021 16:41

Added missing import line

cf9dbcd

Added class doc update for HMAC-SHA256

ebc4c10

Revert OAuthHmacSigner and add new class OAuthHmacSha256Signer

873217d

svonduhn changed the title ~~feat: Added support for changing the signature method in the OAuthHmacSigner~~ feat: Added HMAC-SHA256 signature method in OAuthHmacSha256Signer Jun 19, 2021

elharo reviewed Jun 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

Updated copyright in files

7a49169

elharo suggested changes Jun 19, 2021

View reviewed changes

Make client and token secrets private and update test to org.junit

6d5efc3

elharo reviewed Jun 29, 2021

View reviewed changes

Made client secret final and updated tests for null case

96f2c93

elharo reviewed Jun 29, 2021

View reviewed changes

TimurSadykov self-requested a review July 3, 2021 23:55

svonduhn added 4 commits August 5, 2021 08:52

Added support for changing the signature method in the OAuthHmacSigner

eed789d

Added javadoc comments for setter

e030f9d

Added missing import line

0bd1d79

Added class doc update for HMAC-SHA256

241b93d

svonduhn added 5 commits August 5, 2021 08:54

Revert OAuthHmacSigner and add new class OAuthHmacSha256Signer

1bbc324

Updated copyright in files

387098a

Make client and token secrets private and update test to org.junit

ff5d8d0

Made client secret final and updated tests for null case

f3d1b37

Merge branch 'HMAC-SHA256' of https://github.com/svonduhn/google-oaut…

e9d15c6

…h-java-client into HMAC-SHA256

svonduhn-chub and others added 5 commits August 5, 2021 10:20

Added support for changing the signature method in the OAuthHmacSigner

72344be

Added javadoc comments for setter

a4a23b0

Added missing import line

c3e75f4

Added class doc update for HMAC-SHA256

0c4a293

Merge branch 'HMAC-SHA256' of https://github.com/svonduhn/google-oaut…

86a6405

…h-java-client into HMAC-SHA256

svonduhn mentioned this pull request Aug 5, 2021

feat: Add HMAC-SHA256 signature method for OAuth 1.0 #711

Merged

svonduhn closed this Aug 11, 2021

svonduhn deleted the HMAC-SHA256 branch August 11, 2021 22:45

		@@ -32,14 +34,34 @@
		@Beta
		public final class OAuthHmacSigner implements OAuthSigner {

feat: Added HMAC-SHA256 signature method in OAuthHmacSha256Signer #703

feat: Added HMAC-SHA256 signature method in OAuthHmacSha256Signer #703

Conversation

svonduhn commented Jun 18, 2021 • edited

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

elharo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

svonduhn commented Jun 18, 2021

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

svonduhn Jun 19, 2021 • edited

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

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

TimurSadykov commented Jul 14, 2021 • edited

svonduhn commented Jul 21, 2021

svonduhn commented Jul 21, 2021

google-cla bot commented Jul 21, 2021

TimurSadykov commented Aug 5, 2021 • edited

google-cla bot commented Aug 5, 2021

svonduhn commented Aug 5, 2021

TimurSadykov commented Aug 5, 2021

google-cla bot commented Aug 5, 2021

svonduhn commented Aug 5, 2021 • edited

svonduhn commented Aug 11, 2021

svonduhn commented Jun 18, 2021 •

edited

svonduhn Jun 19, 2021 •

edited

TimurSadykov commented Jul 14, 2021 •

edited

TimurSadykov commented Aug 5, 2021 •

edited

svonduhn commented Aug 5, 2021 •

edited