Skip to content

JavaScript port: loading screen with the app icon and light/dark colours - #6126

Merged
shai-almog merged 5 commits into
masterfrom
js-splash-screen
Oct 29, 2026
Merged

shai-almog merged 5 commits into
masterfrom
js-splash-screen

Conversation

@shai-almog

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Implements discussion #6117.

  • The loading screen shows the app icon (the 192px PWA icon) above the progress bar; javascript.splash.logo names another image or none.
  • javascript.splash.{background,textColor,accentColor} and dark* variants set the colours; javascript.splash.appearance is auto/light/dark. With no dark colour named the default stays light, so existing apps do not change.
  • The theme is written into <head>, so the first paint is already the right colour; the page background clears when the first form shows.
  • platformHint.javascript.splashAppearance lets an app remember its own light/dark choice for the next launch (local storage, read before first paint).
  • Values are validated (hex or CSS named colours, plain bundle paths) since they are written into the page; the CSP hashes the new inline blocks as before.
  • Developer guide section rewritten; hints declared in the catalog.

Companion builder PR: codenameone/BuildDaemon (branch js-splash-screen).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

shai-almog and others added 3 commits October 28, 2026 14:54
…urs (#6117)

Build hints javascript.splash.* set the colours, appearance mode and logo;
the theme is written into <head> so a dark app never opens on white, and
platformHint.javascript.splashAppearance remembers the app's own choice.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ames, transparent page once started

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ Continuous Quality Report

Test & Coverage

Static Analysis

  • SpotBugs [Report archive]
    • ✅ ByteCodeTranslator: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ android: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ android-compat: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ android-res-compiler: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ backend: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ backend-test: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ build-engine: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ build-hint-catalog: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ build-hint-tools: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ codenameone-gradle-plugin: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ codenameone-maven-plugin: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ core-unittests: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ desktop-compat-runtime: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ fxml-compiler: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ ios: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ javac: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ javafx-compat: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ project-model: 0 findings (no issues)
    • ✅ swing-compat: 0 findings (no issues)
  • ✅ PMD: 0 findings (no issues) [Report archive]
  • ✅ Checkstyle: 0 findings (no issues) [Report archive]

Generated automatically by the PR CI workflow.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Cloudflare Preview

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Flutter vs Codename One

Same application, built both ways: Flutter's AOT compile of the gallery, and the identical Dart source transpiled to Java on Codename One. Lower is better for every metric, so a ratio above 1.00x means Codename One is ahead by that factor.

android

9 interleaved rounds; host load 0.58, 1.98, 1.6

Metric Codename One Flutter Ratio Winner
Installed size 78.2 MB 95.8 MB 1.22x Codename One
Executable code 4.7 MB 20.6 MB 4.41x Codename One
Download size (zipped) 78.2 MB 95.8 MB 1.22x Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen 455 ms 1243 ms 2.73x Codename One
Memory at rest 44.8 MB 78.4 MB 1.76x Codename One

Start-up and memory at rest are judged round by round: the ratio is the median of the per-round ratios, each from two launches made back to back, and the times and sizes shown are each side's median, so the ratio need not equal their quotient. Codename One was ahead in 9 of 9 rounds on cold start to first frame on screen; 9 of 9 rounds on memory at rest.

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Workload Codename One Flutter Ratio
intArithmetic 71 ms 187 ms 2.63x
longArithmetic 45 ms 49 ms 1.09x
mathTranscendental 135 ms 229 ms 1.70x
arraySequential 25 ms 29 ms 1.16x
arrayRandom 206 ms 253 ms 1.23x
objectAllocation 78 ms 45 ms 0.58x
valueEscape 6 ms 10 ms 1.67x
hashMapChurn 138 ms 214 ms 1.55x
stringBuilding 92 ms 93 ms 1.01x
recursion 66 ms 179 ms 2.71x
quicksortBench 116 ms 123 ms 1.06x
Geometric mean 1.36x

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline.

Android sizes are for the arm64-v8a slice a phone is delivered, on both sides; Flutter's release apk carries three ABIs and would otherwise count its engine about three times.
Android start-up and memory come from an x86_64 emulator with a software GPU. They compare the two runtimes on one machine; they are not phone timings, and a renderer that leans on the GPU is penalised more there.
This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

ios

9 interleaved rounds; host load 40.21, 42.96, 33.18

Metric Codename One Flutter Ratio Winner
Installed size 108.3 MB 110.5 MB 1.02x Codename One
Executable code 17.3 MB 19.1 MB 1.10x Codename One
Download size (zipped) 80.0 MB 81.9 MB 1.02x Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen -- -- -- not measured
Memory at rest -- -- -- not measured

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Not measured: iOS compute is not measured: a device build needs signed hardware, and on the simulator Flutter runs its JIT debug engine rather than AOT code. The macOS row runs the same ParparVM and Dart AOT compilers on the same Apple silicon.

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline.

iOS start-up and memory are not measured here: Flutter cannot AOT-compile for the simulator, so a simulator run would time a JIT debug build against a release build. Sizes come from release device bundles; timings need signed hardware.
This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

javascript

9 interleaved rounds; host load 1.74, 1.2, 0.57

Metric Codename One Flutter Ratio Winner
Installed size 104.0 MB 122.5 MB 1.18x Codename One
Executable code 12.9 MB 25.2 MB 1.95x Codename One
Download size (zipped) 76.3 MB 84.1 MB 1.10x Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen -- -- -- not measured
Memory at rest -- -- -- not measured

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Workload Codename One Flutter Ratio
intArithmetic 734 ms wrong result Flutter: wrong result
longArithmetic 4739 ms did not run Flutter: did not run
mathTranscendental 419 ms did not run Flutter: did not run
arraySequential 241 ms 84 ms 0.35x
arrayRandom 803 ms wrong result Flutter: wrong result
objectAllocation 55 ms 25 ms 0.46x
valueEscape 118 ms 8 ms 0.07x
hashMapChurn 874 ms 249 ms 0.28x
stringBuilding 434 ms 99 ms 0.23x
recursion 509 ms 396 ms 0.78x
quicksortBench 478 ms wrong result Flutter: wrong result
Geometric mean 0.29x

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline; BEHIND FLUTTER on Compute (geomean of the VM workloads) (reported, not gated: a loss to Flutter on the web is currently accepted).

the JavaScript adapter needs a Chrome DevTools driver; sizes are reported and timings are not
This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

linux

9 interleaved rounds; host load 0.25, 3.06, 2.66

Metric Codename One Flutter Ratio Winner
Installed size 111.7 MB 143.8 MB 1.29x Codename One
Executable code 14.2 MB 16.1 MB 1.13x Codename One
Download size (zipped) 80.9 MB 92.9 MB 1.15x Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen 151 ms 254 ms 1.70x Codename One
Memory at rest 81.7 MB 223.4 MB 2.73x Codename One

Start-up and memory at rest are judged round by round: the ratio is the median of the per-round ratios, each from two launches made back to back, and the times and sizes shown are each side's median, so the ratio need not equal their quotient. Codename One was ahead in 9 of 9 rounds on cold start to first frame on screen; 9 of 9 rounds on memory at rest.

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Workload Codename One Flutter Ratio
intArithmetic 74 ms 183 ms 2.47x
longArithmetic 56 ms 55 ms 0.98x
mathTranscendental 253 ms 276 ms 1.09x
arraySequential 17 ms 35 ms 2.06x
arrayRandom 338 ms 388 ms 1.15x
objectAllocation 26 ms 37 ms 1.42x
valueEscape 5 ms 7 ms 1.40x
hashMapChurn 50 ms 344 ms 6.88x
stringBuilding 33 ms 129 ms 3.91x
recursion 87 ms 256 ms 2.94x
quicksortBench 138 ms 149 ms 1.08x
Geometric mean 1.89x

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline.

This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

macos

9 interleaved rounds; host load 1.73, 8.7, 8.39

Metric Codename One Flutter Ratio Winner
Installed size 124.3 MB 139.4 MB 1.12x Codename One
Executable code 33.2 MB 47.9 MB 1.44x Codename One
Download size (zipped) 85.6 MB 93.3 MB 1.09x Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen 129 ms 183 ms 1.41x Codename One
Memory at rest 37.0 MB 51.3 MB 1.39x Codename One

Start-up and memory at rest are judged round by round: the ratio is the median of the per-round ratios, each from two launches made back to back, and the times and sizes shown are each side's median, so the ratio need not equal their quotient. Codename One was ahead in 9 of 9 rounds on cold start to first frame on screen; 9 of 9 rounds on memory at rest.

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Workload Codename One Flutter Ratio
intArithmetic 98 ms 228 ms 2.33x
longArithmetic 61 ms 60 ms 0.98x
mathTranscendental 246 ms 292 ms 1.19x
arraySequential 10 ms 38 ms 3.80x
arrayRandom 235 ms 278 ms 1.18x
objectAllocation 31 ms 25 ms 0.81x
valueEscape 4 ms 11 ms 2.75x
hashMapChurn 29 ms 149 ms 5.14x
stringBuilding 22 ms 96 ms 4.36x
recursion 114 ms 176 ms 1.54x
quicksortBench 106 ms 125 ms 1.18x
Geometric mean 1.89x

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline.

This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

windows

9 interleaved rounds

Metric Codename One Flutter Ratio Winner
Installed size 107.8 MB 121.1 MB 1.12x Codename One
Executable code 11.4 MB 14.1 MB 1.24x Codename One
Download size (zipped) 77.9 MB 86.4 MB 1.11x Codename One
Cold start to first frame on screen 157 ms 253 ms 1.58x Codename One
Memory at rest 58.5 MB 92.4 MB 1.58x Codename One

Start-up and memory at rest are judged round by round: the ratio is the median of the per-round ratios, each from two launches made back to back, and the times and sizes shown are each side's median, so the ratio need not equal their quotient. Codename One was ahead in 9 of 9 rounds on cold start to first frame on screen; 9 of 9 rounds on memory at rest.

Compute -- the VM workloads (vm/benchmarks), run inside each app; time is the best of the app's own repetitions, higher ratio means Codename One is faster.

Workload Codename One Flutter Ratio
intArithmetic 81 ms 184 ms 2.27x
longArithmetic 63 ms 58 ms 0.92x
mathTranscendental 198 ms 268 ms 1.35x
arraySequential 12 ms 35 ms 2.92x
arrayRandom 258 ms 308 ms 1.19x
objectAllocation 26 ms 39 ms 1.50x
valueEscape 1 ms 7 ms 7.00x
hashMapChurn 48 ms 322 ms 6.71x
stringBuilding 35 ms 120 ms 3.43x
recursion 211 ms 264 ms 1.25x
quicksortBench 141 ms 146 ms 1.03x
Geometric mean 2.08x

Gate: within tolerance against scripts/flutter-bench/baseline.

This platform's adapter has not been exercised end to end before; treat the first published run as the thing under review.

Codename One wins 26 of 26 measured metrics across 6 platform(s).

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Developer Guide build artifacts are available for download from this workflow run:

Developer Guide quality checks:

  • AsciiDoc linter: No issues found (report)
  • Vale: No alerts found (report)
  • Paragraph capitalization: No paragraph capitalization issues (report)
  • LanguageTool: No grammar matches (report)
  • Image references: No unused images detected (report)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 191 screenshots: 191 matched.

Native Android coverage

  • 📊 Line coverage: 18.91% (48255/255242 lines covered) [HTML preview] (artifact android-coverage-report, jacocoAndroidReport/html/index.html)
    • Other counters: instruction 17.64% (229223/1299291), branch 12.05% (16823/139631), complexity 9.68% (12916/133391), method 14.59% (9124/62546), class 25.16% (1775/7056)
    • Lowest covered classes
      • kotlin.collections.kotlin.collections.ArraysKt___ArraysKt – 0.00% (0/6356 lines covered)
      • kotlin.collections.unsigned.kotlin.collections.unsigned.UArraysKt___UArraysKt – 0.00% (0/2384 lines covered)
      • org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.ClassReader – 0.00% (0/1524 lines covered)
      • org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.MethodWriter – 0.00% (0/922 lines covered)
      • kotlinx.coroutines.channels.kotlinx.coroutines.channels.BufferedChannel – 0.00% (0/832 lines covered)
      • kotlin.sequences.kotlin.sequences.SequencesKt___SequencesKt – 0.00% (0/735 lines covered)
      • com.google.common.cache.com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment – 0.00% (0/726 lines covered)
      • okio.okio.Buffer – 0.00% (0/687 lines covered)
      • com.codename1.androidcompat.rt.com.codename1.androidcompat.rt.TextXmlPullParser – 0.00% (0/623 lines covered)
      • kotlin.text.kotlin.text.StringsKt___StringsKt – 0.00% (0/623 lines covered)

✅ Native Android screenshot tests passed.

Native Android coverage

  • 📊 Line coverage: 18.91% (48255/255242 lines covered) [HTML preview] (artifact android-coverage-report, jacocoAndroidReport/html/index.html)
    • Other counters: instruction 17.64% (229223/1299291), branch 12.05% (16823/139631), complexity 9.68% (12916/133391), method 14.59% (9124/62546), class 25.16% (1775/7056)
    • Lowest covered classes
      • kotlin.collections.kotlin.collections.ArraysKt___ArraysKt – 0.00% (0/6356 lines covered)
      • kotlin.collections.unsigned.kotlin.collections.unsigned.UArraysKt___UArraysKt – 0.00% (0/2384 lines covered)
      • org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.ClassReader – 0.00% (0/1524 lines covered)
      • org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.org.jacoco.agent.rt.internal_0e20598.asm.MethodWriter – 0.00% (0/922 lines covered)
      • kotlinx.coroutines.channels.kotlinx.coroutines.channels.BufferedChannel – 0.00% (0/832 lines covered)
      • kotlin.sequences.kotlin.sequences.SequencesKt___SequencesKt – 0.00% (0/735 lines covered)
      • com.google.common.cache.com.google.common.cache.LocalCache$Segment – 0.00% (0/726 lines covered)
      • okio.okio.Buffer – 0.00% (0/687 lines covered)
      • com.codename1.androidcompat.rt.com.codename1.androidcompat.rt.TextXmlPullParser – 0.00% (0/623 lines covered)
      • kotlin.text.kotlin.text.StringsKt___StringsKt – 0.00% (0/623 lines covered)

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric Duration
SIMD kernel backend scalar fallback (no native SIMD)
SIMD int-add (64K x300) java 175ms / native 81ms = 2.1x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300) java 135ms / native 61ms = 2.2x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 payload size 8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations 6000
Base64 SIMD byte path gated to scalar (CPU autovectorizes scalar; explicit SIMD not beneficial here)
Base64 CN1 encode 60.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode 67.000 ms
Base64 native encode 355.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (CN1/native) 0.169x (83.1% faster)
Base64 native decode 269.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (CN1/native) 0.249x (75.1% faster)
Image encode benchmark status skipped (SIMD unsupported)

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 227 screenshots: 227 matched.
✅ JavaScript-port screenshot tests passed.

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 249 screenshots: 249 matched.
✅ Native Apple Watch (watchOS, Core Graphics) screenshot tests passed.

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 188 screenshots: 188 matched.
✅ Native Mac screenshot tests passed.

Benchmark Results

  • VM Translation Time: 0 seconds
  • Compilation Time: 798 seconds

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric Duration
SIMD kernel backend SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300) java 53ms / native 3ms = 17.6x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300) java 53ms / native 3ms = 17.6x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 payload size 8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations 6000
Base64 SIMD byte path active (NEON-accelerated)
Base64 CN1 encode 94.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode 65.000 ms
Base64 native encode 694.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (CN1/native) 0.135x (86.5% faster)
Base64 native decode 354.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (CN1/native) 0.184x (81.6% faster)
Base64 SIMD encode 62.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 0.660x (34.0% faster)
Base64 SIMD decode 58.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 0.892x (10.8% faster)
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/native) 0.089x (91.1% faster)
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/native) 0.164x (83.6% faster)
Image encode benchmark iterations 100
Image createMask (SIMD off) 7.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on) 3.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.429x (57.1% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off) 52.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on) 55.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 1.058x (5.8% slower)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off) 58.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on) 35.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.603x (39.7% faster)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off) 59.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on) 54.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.915x (8.5% faster)

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 189 screenshots: 189 matched.
✅ Native iOS Metal screenshot tests passed.

Benchmark Results

  • VM Translation Time: 0 seconds
  • Compilation Time: 2244 seconds

Build and Run Timing

Metric Duration
Simulator Boot 76000 ms
Simulator Boot (Run) 0 ms
App Install 16000 ms
App Launch 4000 ms
Test Execution 524000 ms

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric Duration
SIMD kernel backend SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300) java 358ms / native 4ms = 89.5x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300) java 241ms / native 8ms = 30.1x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 payload size 8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations 6000
Base64 SIMD byte path active (NEON-accelerated)
Base64 CN1 encode 116.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode 172.000 ms
Base64 native encode 2219.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (CN1/native) 0.052x (94.8% faster)
Base64 native decode 1607.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (CN1/native) 0.107x (89.3% faster)
Base64 SIMD encode 97.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 0.836x (16.4% faster)
Base64 SIMD decode 80.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 0.465x (53.5% faster)
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/native) 0.044x (95.6% faster)
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/native) 0.050x (95.0% faster)
Image encode benchmark iterations 100
Image createMask (SIMD off) 12.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on) 6.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.500x (50.0% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off) 113.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on) 151.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 1.336x (33.6% slower)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off) 113.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on) 450.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off) 3.982x (298.2% slower)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off) 83.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on) 109.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off) 1.313x (31.3% slower)

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 206 screenshots: 206 matched.
Native Windows port, REAL shipping pipeline: the hellocodenameone screenshot suite rendered by a binary CROSS-COMPILED on Linux (clang-cl + xwin, WebView2 linked) and RUN on a Windows x64 runner. Compared against the in-repo baseline in scripts/windows/screenshots.

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric Duration
SIMD kernel backend SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300) java 59ms / native 5ms = 11.8x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300) java 57ms / native 5ms = 11.4x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 native bridge unavailable (CN1 + SIMD + image benchmarks only)
Base64 payload size 8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations 6000
Base64 SIMD byte path gated to scalar (CPU autovectorizes scalar; explicit SIMD not beneficial here)
Base64 CN1 encode 74.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode 93.000 ms
Base64 SIMD encode 113.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 1.527x (52.7% slower)
Base64 SIMD decode 104.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 1.118x (11.8% slower)
Image encode benchmark iterations 100
Image createMask (SIMD off) 9.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on) 4.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.444x (55.6% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off) 30.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on) 27.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.900x (10.0% faster)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off) 33.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on) 15.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.455x (54.5% faster)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off) 29.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on) 21.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.724x (27.6% faster)

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 28, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 206 screenshots: 206 matched.
Native Windows port (x64 / Intel-AMD): full hellocodenameone screenshot suite rendered offscreen with Direct2D/DirectWrite, plus the real benchmarks (base64 native/CN1/SIMD, image createMask/applyMask/modifyAlpha/PNG/JPEG, SSE2 SIMD kernels). Compared against the in-repo baseline in scripts/windows/screenshots.

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric Duration
SIMD kernel backend SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300) java 57ms / native 4ms = 14.2x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300) java 56ms / native 4ms = 14.0x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 native bridge unavailable (CN1 + SIMD + image benchmarks only)
Base64 payload size 8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations 6000
Base64 SIMD byte path gated to scalar (CPU autovectorizes scalar; explicit SIMD not beneficial here)
Base64 CN1 encode 82.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode 94.000 ms
Base64 SIMD encode 121.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 1.476x (47.6% slower)
Base64 SIMD decode 105.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 1.117x (11.7% slower)
Image encode benchmark iterations 100
Image createMask (SIMD off) 11.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on) 3.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.273x (72.7% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off) 37.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on) 32.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.865x (13.5% faster)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off) 36.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on) 21.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.583x (41.7% faster)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off) 30.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on) 18.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.600x (40.0% faster)

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Windows x64

Runner CPU: AMD64 Family 25 Model 17 Stepping 1, AuthenticAMD (baseline windows-x64@amd64-family-25-model-17-authenticamd)

Ratios are ParparVM / JDK 25: below 1.00x ParparVM is faster (time) or smaller (RAM). Median of 5 interleaved, paired rounds; every run's output was verified. A ratio more than 20% (time) / 25% (RAM) above its baseline in vm/selfhost/perf-baseline/ is a regression and fails; one that far below is an improvement, reported but not failed (a row whose calibration runs were noisier carries a wider tolerance), and for RAM the change must also exceed 0.05x in absolute terms. Both run unpinned on all of the runner's CPUs, with their own default thread counts.

Benchmark Cores Time RAM Status
hello (WinHelloMain) 4 1.48x (base 1.38x, +7.6%) 0.57x (base 0.82x, -30.3%) ok
translator (self) 4 0.86x (base 0.89x, -2.8%) 0.50x (base 0.55x, -8.5%) ok
intArithmetic 4 1.10x (base 1.10x, +0.4%) 0.06x (base 0.06x, +7.7%) ok
longArithmetic 4 1.08x (base 1.08x, -0.0%) 0.06x (base 0.06x, +1.7%) ok
mathTranscendental 4 0.83x (base 0.85x, -2.6%) 0.06x (base 0.06x, +4.6%) ok
arraySequential 4 1.70x (base 1.72x, -1.0%) 0.39x (base 0.38x, +0.7%) ok
arrayRandom 4 1.02x (base 1.01x, +0.7%) 0.23x (base 0.23x, +1.0%) ok
objectAllocation 4 1.25x (base 1.25x, -0.7%) 0.35x (base 0.29x, +17.2%) ok
valueEscape 4 0.10x (base 0.10x, -1.7%) 0.05x (base 0.04x, +1.7%) ok
hashMapChurn 4 1.87x (base 1.39x, +34.2%) 0.10x (base 0.10x, +1.1%) ok
stringBuilding 4 1.34x (base 1.36x, -1.5%) 0.32x (base 0.28x, +16.4%) ok
recursion 4 1.38x (base 1.43x, -3.4%) 0.06x (base 0.06x, +3.4%) ok
quicksort 4 1.10x (base 1.11x, -0.9%) 0.12x (base 0.12x, +1.0%) ok

Result: no regression

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 29, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 206 screenshots: 206 matched.
Native Linux port (x64), GTK3/Cairo/Pango, ParparVM bytecode-to-C (no JVM): the hellocodenameone screenshot suite rendered by a native ELF built + run on the GitHub x64 runner. Baseline: scripts/linux/screenshots.

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Linux x64

Runner CPU: AMD EPYC 9V45 96-Core Processor (baseline linux-x64@amd-epyc-9v45-96-core-processor)

Ratios are ParparVM / JDK 25: below 1.00x ParparVM is faster (time) or smaller (RAM). Median of 5 interleaved, paired rounds; every run's output was verified. A ratio more than 20% (time) / 25% (RAM) above its baseline in vm/selfhost/perf-baseline/ is a regression and fails; one that far below is an improvement, reported but not failed (a row whose calibration runs were noisier carries a wider tolerance), and for RAM the change must also exceed 0.05x in absolute terms. Both run unpinned on all of the runner's CPUs, with their own default thread counts.

Benchmark Cores Time RAM Status
hello (LinuxHelloMain) 4 0.98x (base 0.92x, +7.4%) 0.69x (base 0.84x, -18.4%) ok
translator (self) 4 0.64x (base 0.64x, -0.4%) 0.52x (base 0.55x, -4.3%) ok
intArithmetic 4 1.00x (base 1.00x, +0.0%) 0.04x (base 0.06x, -30.9%) ok
longArithmetic 4 0.99x (base 0.99x, -0.4%) 0.04x (base 0.07x, -47.3%) ok
mathTranscendental 4 1.19x (base 1.20x, -1.0%) 0.04x (base 0.06x, -28.4%) ok
arraySequential 4 2.87x (base 2.91x, -1.1%) 0.36x (base 0.36x, +1.0%) ok
arrayRandom 4 0.98x (base 1.04x, -5.4%) 0.20x (base 0.23x, -10.9%) ok
objectAllocation 4 1.53x (base 1.61x, -4.9%) 0.25x (base 0.24x, +6.1%) ok
valueEscape 4 0.10x (base 0.12x, -14.9%) 0.03x (base 0.04x, -31.6%) ok
hashMapChurn 4 1.32x (base 1.31x, +0.9%) 0.10x (base 0.09x, +18.6%) ok
stringBuilding 4 1.51x (base 1.58x, -4.2%) 0.26x (base 0.22x, +20.1%) ok
recursion 4 1.45x (base 1.34x, +8.3%) 0.04x (base 0.08x, -47.9%) ok
quicksort 4 1.06x (base 1.06x, +0.3%) 0.10x (base 0.11x, -10.8%) ok

Result: no regression

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 29, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 206 screenshots: 206 matched.
Native Linux port (arm64), GTK3/Cairo/Pango, ParparVM bytecode-to-C (no JVM): the hellocodenameone screenshot suite rendered by a native ELF built + run on the GitHub arm64 runner. Baseline: scripts/linux/screenshots-arm.

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Linux arm64

Runner CPU: Neoverse-N2 (baseline linux-arm64@neoverse-n2)

Ratios are ParparVM / JDK 25: below 1.00x ParparVM is faster (time) or smaller (RAM). Median of 5 interleaved, paired rounds; every run's output was verified. A ratio more than 20% (time) / 25% (RAM) above its baseline in vm/selfhost/perf-baseline/ is a regression and fails; one that far below is an improvement, reported but not failed (a row whose calibration runs were noisier carries a wider tolerance), and for RAM the change must also exceed 0.05x in absolute terms. Both run unpinned on all of the runner's CPUs, with their own default thread counts.

Benchmark Cores Time RAM Status
hello (LinuxHelloMain) 4 0.95x (base 1.02x, -6.5%) 0.63x (base 0.93x, -32.1%) ok
translator (self) 4 0.75x (base 0.70x, +7.2%) 0.42x (base 0.43x, -3.3%) ok
intArithmetic 4 1.05x (base 1.04x, +0.0%) 0.03x (base 0.03x, +4.7%) ok
longArithmetic 4 0.79x (base 0.79x, +0.0%) 0.03x (base 0.03x, +5.1%) ok
mathTranscendental 4 1.10x (base 1.10x, -0.0%) 0.04x (base 0.03x, +9.7%) ok
arraySequential 4 0.35x (base 0.36x, -2.3%) 0.37x (base 0.37x, +0.2%) ok
arrayRandom 4 0.93x (base 0.94x, -0.3%) 0.20x (base 0.20x, +0.6%) ok
objectAllocation 4 1.93x (base 1.77x, +9.4%) 0.37x (base 0.37x, -0.8%) ok
valueEscape 4 0.51x (base 0.51x, -0.1%) 0.03x (base 0.03x, +5.8%) ok
hashMapChurn 4 0.86x (base 0.84x, +2.4%) 0.12x (base 0.12x, -0.3%) ok
stringBuilding 4 1.35x (base 1.57x, -13.6%) 0.26x (base 0.26x, -0.3%) ok
recursion 4 1.42x (base 1.43x, -0.9%) 0.04x (base 0.04x, +2.7%) ok
quicksort 4 1.01x (base 0.99x, +2.2%) 0.09x (base 0.09x, +1.3%) ok

Result: no regression

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 29, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 192 screenshots: 192 matched.
✅ Native Mac screenshot tests passed.

Benchmark Results

  • VM Translation Time: 0 seconds
  • Compilation Time: 450 seconds

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric Duration
SIMD kernel backend SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300) java 59ms / native 3ms = 19.6x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300) java 57ms / native 2ms = 28.5x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 native bridge unavailable (CN1 + SIMD + image benchmarks only)
Base64 payload size 8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations 6000
Base64 SIMD byte path active (NEON-accelerated)
Base64 CN1 encode 45.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode 53.000 ms
Image encode benchmark iterations 100
Image createMask (SIMD off) 7.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on) 4.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.571x (42.9% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off) 81.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on) 78.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.963x (3.7% faster)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off) 63.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on) 60.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.952x (4.8% faster)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off) 60.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on) 69.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off) 1.150x (15.0% slower)

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): macOS arm64

Runner CPU: Apple M1 (Virtual) (baseline macos-arm64)

Ratios are ParparVM / JDK 25: below 1.00x ParparVM is faster (time) or smaller (RAM). Median of 5 interleaved, paired rounds; every run's output was verified. A ratio more than 20% (time) / 25% (RAM) above its baseline in vm/selfhost/perf-baseline/ is a regression and fails; one that far below is an improvement, reported but not failed (a row whose calibration runs were noisier carries a wider tolerance), and for RAM the change must also exceed 0.05x in absolute terms. Both run unpinned on all of the runner's CPUs, with their own default thread counts.

Benchmark Cores Time RAM Status
hello (HelloCodenameOne) 3 0.91x (base 0.96x, -4.5%) 0.88x (base 0.93x, -4.4%) ok
translator (self) 3 0.62x (base 0.62x, -1.1%) 0.76x (base 0.78x, -3.1%) ok
intArithmetic 3 1.04x (base 1.03x, +0.5%) 0.12x (base 0.12x, +1.6%) ok
longArithmetic 3 1.01x (base 1.03x, -1.6%) 0.11x (base 0.07x, +61.6%) ok
mathTranscendental 3 0.99x (base 1.01x, -1.5%) 0.12x (base 0.12x, +1.2%) ok
arraySequential 3 0.43x (base 0.42x, +3.2%) 0.53x (base 0.53x, +0.3%) ok
arrayRandom 3 1.01x (base 0.99x, +1.6%) 0.32x (base 0.32x, +0.2%) ok
objectAllocation 3 0.97x (base 1.11x, -12.0%) 0.61x (base 0.72x, -15.3%) ok
valueEscape 3 0.51x (base 0.51x, +0.2%) 0.09x (base 0.09x, +1.4%) ok
hashMapChurn 3 1.08x (base 1.18x, -8.0%) 0.08x (base 0.07x, +16.9%) ok
stringBuilding 3 0.91x (base 0.84x, +8.0%) 0.47x (base 0.46x, +0.5%) ok
recursion 3 1.23x (base 1.24x, -0.6%) 0.12x (base 0.12x, +1.2%) ok
quicksort 3 1.00x (base 1.01x, -1.2%) 0.11x (base 0.11x, -0.3%) ok

Result: no regression

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

✅ ByteCodeTranslator Quality Report

Test & Coverage

  • ✅ Tests: 894 total, 0 failed, 55 skipped

Benchmark Results

  • Execution Time: 11314 ms

  • Hotspots (Top 20 sampled methods):

    • 16.72% com.codename1.tools.translator.IteratorEscape.mangle (283 samples)
    • 6.91% java.lang.System.identityHashCode (117 samples)
    • 5.85% java.lang.Object.hashCode (99 samples)
    • 4.55% java.util.ArrayList.indexOf (77 samples)
    • 3.90% com.codename1.tools.translator.BytecodeMethod.equals (66 samples)
    • 3.07% com.codename1.tools.translator.classfile.analysis.Frame.execute (52 samples)
    • 2.66% java.lang.StringBuilder.append (45 samples)
    • 2.30% com.codename1.tools.translator.JavascriptReachability.enqueueResolved (39 samples)
    • 1.71% com.codename1.tools.translator.bytecodes.Invoke.findMethodUp (29 samples)
    • 1.30% java.io.FileOutputStream.writeBytes (22 samples)
    • 1.30% com.codename1.tools.translator.ByteCodeClass.hasDeclaredMethod (22 samples)
    • 1.24% java.util.HashMap.hash (21 samples)
    • 1.18% com.codename1.tools.translator.bytecodes.Invoke.resolveDirectTarget (20 samples)
    • 1.12% com.codename1.tools.translator.IteratorEscape.ctorOnlyStoresParamsIntoThis (19 samples)
    • 1.06% java.lang.String.equals (18 samples)
    • 1.06% com.codename1.tools.translator.BytecodeMethod.optimize (18 samples)
    • 1.00% java.util.AbstractCollection.containsAll (17 samples)
    • 0.95% com.codename1.tools.translator.ByteCodeClass.hasDeclaredNonAbstractMethod (16 samples)
    • 0.95% java.lang.StringCoding.encode (16 samples)
    • 0.89% com.codename1.tools.translator.ByteCodeClass.updateAllDependencies (15 samples)
  • ⚠️ Coverage report not generated.

Static Analysis

  • ✅ SpotBugs: no findings (report was not generated by the build).
  • ⚠️ PMD report not generated.
  • ⚠️ Checkstyle report not generated.

Generated automatically by the PR CI workflow.

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 29, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 206 screenshots: 206 matched.
Native Windows port (arm64 / Apple Silicon - Arm): full hellocodenameone screenshot suite rendered offscreen with Direct2D/DirectWrite, plus the real benchmarks (base64 native/CN1/SIMD, image createMask/applyMask/modifyAlpha/PNG/JPEG, NEON SIMD kernels). Compared against the in-repo baseline in scripts/windows/screenshots.

Benchmark Results

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric Duration
SIMD kernel backend SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300) java 50ms / native 3ms = 16.6x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300) java 48ms / native 3ms = 16.0x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 native bridge unavailable (CN1 + SIMD + image benchmarks only)
Base64 payload size 8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations 6000
Base64 SIMD byte path gated to scalar (CPU autovectorizes scalar; explicit SIMD not beneficial here)
Base64 CN1 encode 59.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode 73.000 ms
Base64 SIMD encode 78.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 1.322x (32.2% slower)
Base64 SIMD decode 72.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 0.986x (1.4% faster)
Image encode benchmark iterations 100
Image createMask (SIMD off) 5.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on) 2.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.400x (60.0% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off) 18.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on) 18.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 1.000x (0.0% slower)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off) 17.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on) 10.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.588x (41.2% faster)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off) 16.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on) 10.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.625x (37.5% faster)

ParparVM vs HotSpot (JDK 25): Windows arm64

Runner CPU: ARMv8 (64-bit) Family 8 Model D49 Revision 0, MICROSOFT CORPORATION (baseline windows-arm64@armv8-64-bit-family-8-model-d49-microsoft-corporation)

Ratios are ParparVM / JDK 25: below 1.00x ParparVM is faster (time) or smaller (RAM). Median of 5 interleaved, paired rounds; every run's output was verified. A ratio more than 20% (time) / 25% (RAM) above its baseline in vm/selfhost/perf-baseline/ is a regression and fails; one that far below is an improvement, reported but not failed (a row whose calibration runs were noisier carries a wider tolerance), and for RAM the change must also exceed 0.05x in absolute terms. Both run unpinned on all of the runner's CPUs, with their own default thread counts.

Benchmark Cores Time RAM Status
hello (WinHelloMain) 4 0.98x (base 1.11x, -11.0%) 0.63x (base 0.75x, -15.6%) ok
translator (self) 4 0.89x (base 0.84x, +6.3%) 0.48x (base 0.51x, -5.9%) ok
intArithmetic 4 1.04x (base 1.04x, +0.0%) 0.06x (base 0.06x, +3.2%) ok
longArithmetic 4 0.80x (base 0.80x, +0.0%) 0.06x (base 0.06x, +3.6%) ok
mathTranscendental 4 0.72x (base 0.72x, +0.0%) 0.07x (base 0.06x, +1.7%) ok
arraySequential 4 0.37x (base 0.46x, -19.3%) 0.39x (base 0.39x, -0.0%) ok
arrayRandom 4 0.94x (base 0.94x, +0.4%) 0.23x (base 0.23x, +0.3%) ok
objectAllocation 4 1.80x (base 1.82x, -1.3%) 0.38x (base 0.43x, -11.6%) ok
valueEscape 4 0.76x (base 0.76x, +0.0%) 0.05x (base 0.05x, +2.8%) ok
hashMapChurn 4 0.98x (base 0.98x, -0.2%) 0.12x (base 0.12x, -2.3%) ok
stringBuilding 4 1.60x (base 1.43x, +12.3%) 0.27x (base 0.27x, -0.4%) ok
recursion 4 1.55x (base 1.46x, +6.0%) 0.07x (base 0.07x, +1.3%) ok
quicksort 4 1.01x (base 1.00x, +0.6%) 0.12x (base 0.12x, +0.6%) ok

Result: no regression

@shai-almog

shai-almog commented Oct 29, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Compared 189 screenshots: 189 matched.
✅ Native iOS Metal screenshot tests passed.

Benchmark Results

  • VM Translation Time: 0 seconds
  • Compilation Time: 2685 seconds

Build and Run Timing

Metric Duration
Simulator Boot 93000 ms
Simulator Boot (Run) 10000 ms
App Install 17000 ms
App Launch 3000 ms
Test Execution 487000 ms

Detailed Performance Metrics

Metric Duration
SIMD kernel backend SSE2 (x64) / NEON (arm64) native kernels
SIMD int-add (64K x300) java 99ms / native 8ms = 12.3x speedup
SIMD float-mul (64K x300) java 103ms / native 8ms = 12.8x speedup
SIMD kernel correctness PASS (native result == scalar reference)
Base64 payload size 8192 bytes
Base64 benchmark iterations 6000
Base64 SIMD byte path active (NEON-accelerated)
Base64 CN1 encode 338.000 ms
Base64 CN1 decode 127.000 ms
Base64 native encode 1582.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (CN1/native) 0.214x (78.6% faster)
Base64 native decode 975.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (CN1/native) 0.130x (87.0% faster)
Base64 SIMD encode 89.000 ms
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 0.263x (73.7% faster)
Base64 SIMD decode 97.000 ms
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/CN1) 0.764x (23.6% faster)
Base64 encode ratio (SIMD/native) 0.056x (94.4% faster)
Base64 decode ratio (SIMD/native) 0.099x (90.1% faster)
Image encode benchmark iterations 100
Image createMask (SIMD off) 9.000 ms
Image createMask (SIMD on) 3.000 ms
Image createMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.333x (66.7% faster)
Image applyMask (SIMD off) 245.000 ms
Image applyMask (SIMD on) 272.000 ms
Image applyMask ratio (SIMD on/off) 1.110x (11.0% slower)
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD off) 138.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha (SIMD on) 520.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha ratio (SIMD on/off) 3.768x (276.8% slower)
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD off) 347.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor (SIMD on) 335.000 ms
Image modifyAlpha removeColor ratio (SIMD on/off) 0.965x (3.5% faster)

@shai-almog
shai-almog merged commit 40fc766 into master Oct 29, 2026
153 of 156 checks passed
@shai-almog
shai-almog deleted the js-splash-screen branch October 29, 2026 01:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant