Added improvements to auction_window. #898 #963

AKorpusenko · 2018-09-26T07:29:48Z

Added virtual operation for auction window reward returning to reward fund
Added option to chose auction window reward destination: to_curators or to_reward_fund

afalaleev

Need changes in
discussion_helper::impl::set_pending_payout()
and
operation_history_plugin

afalaleev · 2018-09-26T08:10:17Z

libraries/chain/include/golos/chain/comment_object.hpp


            comment_mode mode = first_payout;

+            protocol::auction_window_reward_destination_type auction_window_reward_destination = protocol::destination_not_set;


Use using for such cases.

Default to_author. After HF default should be to_reward_fund.

afalaleev · 2018-09-26T08:15:40Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                            c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators
+                        ) {
+                            claim += ((additional_claim * weight) /
+                                      total_weight).to_uint64();


A very strange calculation....

You lost claim for curators in auction window, because total_weight contains them.
You should deduct auction window weight from total_weight.

Fixed the calculations.

afalaleev · 2018-09-26T08:17:35Z

libraries/api/include/golos/api/comment_api_object.hpp

@@ -59,10 +59,12 @@ namespace golos { namespace api {
        int32_t net_votes = 0;

        comment_mode mode = not_set;
+        protocol::auction_window_reward_destination_type auction_window_reward_destination = protocol::destination_not_set;


Use using ....

afalaleev · 2018-09-26T08:19:06Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

@@ -2255,12 +2255,59 @@ namespace golos { namespace chain {
                share_type unclaimed_rewards = max_rewards;

                if (c.total_vote_weight > 0 && c.allow_curation_rewards) {
+
+                    uint32_t votes_after_auction_window_count = 0;
+                    uint32_t total_votes_count = 0;


You don't use these variables.
What reason was to calculate them?

afalaleev · 2018-09-26T08:33:11Z

libraries/protocol/include/golos/protocol/steem_operations.hpp

+        enum auction_window_reward_destination_type {
+            to_reward_fund,
+            to_curators,
+            destination_not_set


afalaleev · 2018-09-26T08:34:56Z

libraries/protocol/steem_operations.cpp

+        void comment_auction_window_reward_destination::validate() const {
+            // TODO: Figure out how to write it correct
+            // GOLOS_CHECK_PARAM(destination, {
+            //     GOLOS_CHECK_VALUE(destination == to_reward_fund || destination == to_curators,


afalaleev · 2018-09-26T08:35:41Z

libraries/protocol/include/golos/protocol/steem_operations.hpp

+                : destination(dest) {
+            }
+
+            auction_window_reward_destination_type destination = destination_not_set;


Default is not needed.

libraries/chain/steem_evaluator.cpp

afalaleev

How do you test your changes?

afalaleev · 2018-10-01T05:39:25Z

libraries/api/include/golos/api/comment_api_object.hpp

@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ namespace golos { namespace api {

    using namespace golos::chain;
    using namespace golos::protocol;
+    using auc_win_destination = protocol::auction_window_reward_destination_type;


Use simple using protocol::auction_window_destination_type;

afalaleev · 2018-10-01T05:41:16Z

libraries/api/discussion_helper.cpp

+                            boost::make_tuple(0, d.created + d.auction_window_size)
+                        );
+
+                        while (itr != itr_after_auw && itr->comment == d.id) {


You shouldn't do such iterations on runtime - it's too heavy and will generate forks.

Do it in the vote evaluator.

Yes it's really heavy and extra loop. Added one more field in comment_object and added needed calculations to vote_evaluator

This loop still exist.

afalaleev · 2018-10-01T05:43:10Z

libraries/api/discussion_helper.cpp

@@ -193,7 +254,9 @@ namespace golos { namespace api {
                        }
                    }

-                    if (db.has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898)) {
+                    if (db.has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898) &&
+                        d.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_reward_fund


What about case when all votes in auction window? You're lost such rewards.

Yes, you're right. Fixed that case.

Copy logic from fixed pay_curators().
Your calculations are too complex.

Here should only checking on c.auction_window_reward_destination != protocol::to_author
If exist any unclaimed_reward it should be returned to reward fund after HF19

afalaleev · 2018-10-01T05:43:39Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                            boost::make_tuple(0, c.created + c.auction_window_size)
+                        );
+
+                        while (itr != itr_after_auw && itr->comment == c.id) {


You shouldn't do such iterations on runtime - it's too heavy and will generate forks.

afalaleev · 2018-10-01T05:47:36Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                        // to_curators case
+                        if (has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898) && 
+                            c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators) {
+                            if (itr->last_update >= c.created && itr->last_update < auw_time) {


The check itr->last_update >= c.created for what?

It's extra check. Removed it

Check is still exist

Calculations are too complex, they should be more simple:

auto auction_window_reward = max_rewards.value * c.auction_window_weight / total_weight; auto votes_after_auction_window_weight = total_weight - c.votes_in_auction_window_weight - c.auction_window_weight; .... claim = ((max_rewards.value * weight) / total_weight).to_uint64(); if (c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators && itr->last_update >= auw_time) { claim += ((auction_window_reward * weight) / votes_after_auction_window_weight).to_uint64(); }

afalaleev · 2018-10-01T05:49:15Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                                          votes_in_auction_window_weight).to_uint64();
+                            }
+
+                            if (itr->last_update >= auw_time) {


If there are no votes after auction window to where will be send such reward?

afalaleev

Your calculations are too complex.
And you lost auction window in different places.

afalaleev · 2018-10-10T08:01:28Z

libraries/api/discussion_helper.cpp

                    const auto &cvidx = db.get_index<comment_vote_index>().indices().get<by_comment_weight_voter>();
                    for (auto itr = cvidx.lower_bound(d.id); itr != cvidx.end() && itr->comment == d.id; ++itr) {
+                        if (db.has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898) && 
+                            d.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators) {


To one line

afalaleev · 2018-10-10T08:01:45Z

libraries/api/discussion_helper.cpp

+                            boost::make_tuple(0, d.created + d.auction_window_size)
+                        );
+
+                        while (itr != itr_after_auw && itr->comment == d.id) {


This loop still exist.

afalaleev · 2018-10-10T08:06:22Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+
+
+                        votes_after_auction_window_weight = total_weight - 
+                            c.votes_in_auction_window_weight - c.auction_window_weight;


To one line.

afalaleev · 2018-10-10T08:06:42Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                            c.votes_in_auction_window_weight - c.auction_window_weight;
+
+                        votes_in_auction_window_reward = ((max_rewards.value * c.votes_in_auction_window_weight) /
+                                      total_weight).to_uint64();


To one line

afalaleev · 2018-10-10T08:06:56Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                                      total_weight).to_uint64();
+
+                        auction_window_reward = ((max_rewards.value * c.auction_window_weight) /
+                                      total_weight).to_uint64();


To one line.

afalaleev · 2018-10-11T00:35:47Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                        c.total_vote_weight > 0 && c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_reward_fund
+                        || // Also in case when there are no votes after end of auction window,
+                        votes_after_auction_window_weight == 0 // tokens must go to reward fund
+                    ) {


Here should be checking on c.auction_window_reward_destination != protocol::to_author.
If any unclaimed rewards exist, they should be returned to reward fund after HF19

afalaleev · 2018-10-10T08:40:36Z

libraries/chain/include/golos/chain/comment_object.hpp


            comment_mode mode = first_payout;

+            auction_window_reward_destination_type auction_window_reward_destination = protocol::to_reward_fund;
+            uint32_t auction_window_size;


This value should be initialized here and on post creation.
On voting the auction window size should be got from the post, not from properties.

libraries/chain/steem_evaluator.cpp

afalaleev · 2018-10-10T08:52:33Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                        // to_curators case
+                        if (has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898) && 
+                            c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators) {
+                            if (itr->last_update >= c.created && itr->last_update < auw_time) {


Calculations are too complex, they should be more simple:

auto auction_window_reward = max_rewards.value * c.auction_window_weight / total_weight; auto votes_after_auction_window_weight = total_weight - c.votes_in_auction_window_weight - c.auction_window_weight; .... claim = ((max_rewards.value * weight) / total_weight).to_uint64(); if (c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators && itr->last_update >= auw_time) { claim += ((auction_window_reward * weight) / votes_after_auction_window_weight).to_uint64(); }

afalaleev · 2018-10-10T08:53:36Z

libraries/api/discussion_helper.cpp

@@ -193,7 +254,9 @@ namespace golos { namespace api {
                        }
                    }

-                    if (db.has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898)) {
+                    if (db.has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898) &&
+                        d.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_reward_fund


Copy logic from fixed pay_curators().
Your calculations are too complex.

afalaleev

Fix logic.

afalaleev · 2018-10-11T00:30:12Z

libraries/api/discussion_helper.cpp

                    const auto &cvidx = db.get_index<comment_vote_index>().indices().get<by_comment_weight_voter>();
                    for (auto itr = cvidx.lower_bound(d.id); itr != cvidx.end() && itr->comment == d.id; ++itr) {
-                        auto claim = ((max_rewards.value * uint128_t(itr->weight)) / total_weight).to_uint64();
+                        uint64_t claim = ((max_rewards.value * weight) / total_weight).to_uint64();
+                        if (db.has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898) && d.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators) {


Here should be checking on d.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators && itr->last_update >= auw_time without checking on HF.

And next checking is not needed

afalaleev · 2018-10-11T00:32:15Z

libraries/api/discussion_helper.cpp

+                            // to_curators case
+                            if (has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898) &&
+                                c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators && itr->last_update >= auw_time
+                            ) {


Excessive checking, remove it

afalaleev · 2018-10-11T00:33:40Z

libraries/api/discussion_helper.cpp

@@ -193,7 +254,9 @@ namespace golos { namespace api {
                        }
                    }

-                    if (db.has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898)) {
+                    if (db.has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898) &&
+                        d.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_reward_fund


Here should only checking on c.auction_window_reward_destination != protocol::to_author
If exist any unclaimed_reward it should be returned to reward fund after HF19

afalaleev · 2018-10-11T00:34:09Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                        uint64_t claim = ((max_rewards.value * weight) / total_weight).to_uint64();
+                        // to_curators case
+                        if (has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898) &&
+                            c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators && itr->last_update >= auw_time


Here should be checking on d.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators && itr->last_update >= auw_time without checking on HF.

afalaleev · 2018-10-11T00:35:47Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                        c.total_vote_weight > 0 && c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_reward_fund
+                        || // Also in case when there are no votes after end of auction window,
+                        votes_after_auction_window_weight == 0 // tokens must go to reward fund
+                    ) {


Here should be checking on c.auction_window_reward_destination != protocol::to_author.
If any unclaimed rewards exist, they should be returned to reward fund after HF19

afalaleev · 2018-10-11T00:39:14Z

libraries/chain/steem_evaluator.cpp

@@ -535,6 +535,26 @@ namespace golos { namespace chain {
                        "Cannot allocate more than 100% of rewards to a comment");
                });
            }
+
+            void operator()( const comment_auction_window_reward_destination& cawrd ) const {
+                if (_db.has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898)) {


Here should be: ASSERT_REQ_HF(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898);

afalaleev · 2018-10-11T00:39:24Z

libraries/chain/steem_evaluator.cpp

+                        c.auction_window_reward_destination = cawrd.destination;
+                    });
+                }
+                else {


Impossible case.

afalaleev · 2018-10-11T00:40:21Z

libraries/chain/steem_evaluator.cpp

                        com.author = o.author;
                        from_string(com.permlink, o.permlink);
                        com.created = _db.head_block_time();
                        com.last_payout = fc::time_point_sec::min();
                        com.max_cashout_time = fc::time_point_sec::maximum();
                        com.reward_weight = reward_weight;

+                        const witness_schedule_object& wso = _db.get_witness_schedule_object();
+                        com.auction_window_size = wso.median_props.auction_window_size;


Move this up into if (_db.has_hardfork(STEEMIT_HARDFORK_0_19__898))

afalaleev

There is one possible optimization for pending payouts.
But lets left it to the future updates.

afalaleev · 2018-10-11T10:04:25Z

libraries/api/include/golos/api/comment_api_object.hpp

@@ -62,7 +63,10 @@ namespace golos { namespace api {

        comment_object::id_type root_comment;

-        uint128_t auction_window_weight = 0;
+        auction_window_reward_destination_type auction_window_reward_destination;
+        uint32_t auction_window_size;


Set default values here.

maslenitsa93 · 2018-10-23T06:16:13Z

tests/tests/operation_tests.cpp

+            double allowed_percent_delta = 0.01; // = 1e-2
+            double allowed_tokens_delta = 50;
+
+            BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(fabs(0.25 - voters_reward_percent) < allowed_percent_delta, true);


APPROX_CHECK_EQUAL, no? I invented it and you do not using it? :)
And same in another places.

APPROX_CHECK_EQUAL uses std::abs while I need std::fabs. Added APPROX_CHECK_DOUBLE_EQUAL

maslenitsa93 · 2018-10-23T06:24:33Z

tests/tests/operation_tests.cpp

+
+            GOLOS_CHECK_NO_THROW(push_tx_with_ops(tx, alice_private_key, cop));
+            generate_block();
+            auto & alice_post = db->get<comment_object, by_permlink>(boost::make_tuple(comment.author, comment.permlink));


auto & variable_name - Where do you find this strange code style? :)
It is bad, same as auto &variable_name
Good is auto& variable_name
And same in another places.

std::make_tuple is better than boost::
And same in another places.

Why not db->get_comment?
And if fix - same in another places.

Changed all get<comment_object... to get_comment

maslenitsa93 · 2018-10-23T06:29:01Z

tests/tests/operation_tests.cpp

+        FC_LOG_AND_RETHROW()
+    }
+
+    BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(auction_window_tokens_to_reward_fund_empty_case) {


Do we really need a few test cases made by copy-paste with so small diffirences?
auction_window_tokens_to_reward_fund
auction_window_tokens_to_reward_fund_all_in_auw
etc
Isn't it better to join them to single case?
If no - at least simplify each of them, please.

Unfortunatly it's impossible to move all tests for destinations into one test. I've tried to make 3 post and write 3 cases in one test (one post has votes only in AUW, second one only after AUW, and third one has voter in and after AUW), but its impossible to separate total_comment_fund.reward_fund() correctly. That's why there is no other way to check correctness of payments and modeled calculations of it. Tests are large and mostly copy-pasted, I agree but
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also for the same reasons as I wrote before it's impossible to move all testcases into one

maslenitsa93

Simplify tests by simplyfing in details.
Do all these fixes in all tests.

maslenitsa93 · 2018-10-23T11:36:57Z

tests/tests/operation_tests.cpp

+
+            share_type rwd = 0;
+            for (int i = 0; i < voters_count; i++) {
+                std::string acc_name = "voter" + std::to_string(i);


Excessive variable acc_name.

Why? It's okay to write like that.

@AKorpusenko It's
oka
y
to
wri
te
lik
e t
ha
t.
And
und
ers
tan
d su
ch w
wri
tin
gs.
Understood?
More lines = more complicated reading of code.

maslenitsa93 · 2018-10-23T11:37:23Z

tests/tests/operation_tests.cpp

+            }
+            auto& alice_acc = db->get_account(alice_post.author);
+
+            double auw_tokens = (gpo.total_reward_fund_steem.amount.value);


Use auto everywhere if possible.

I need exactly double and i don't have double value in right hand expression, thats why there is no auto in this place.

maslenitsa93 · 2018-10-23T11:38:12Z

tests/tests/operation_tests.cpp

+            auto& alice_acc = db->get_account(alice_post.author);
+
+            double auw_tokens = (gpo.total_reward_fund_steem.amount.value);
+            double total_payout = (alice_acc.posting_rewards.value) * 100.0 / 75.0;


Use 75*STEEMIT_1_PERCENT and etc.

What for? It makes expression much more complicated!

#define STEEMIT_100_PERCENT 10000 #define STEEMIT_1_PERCENT (STEEMIT_100_PERCENT/100)

As for me it's not obvious at all why should I use STEEMIT_1_PERCENT, while the x * 75 / 100 is clear and more understandable, that I need to get 75% of x.

maslenitsa93 · 2018-10-23T11:38:31Z

tests/tests/operation_tests.cpp

+
+            double auw_tokens = (gpo.total_reward_fund_steem.amount.value);
+            double total_payout = (alice_acc.posting_rewards.value) * 100.0 / 75.0;
+            double voters_reward = (rwd.value);


Do not define useless variables.

WTF? I do use them in calculations.

@AKorpusenko You using values. Use values. But don't define variables...
double voters_reward = (rwd.value); // ...or if such value already defined

maslenitsa93

Please, write code as simple as possible. No excessive variables or another things. If could be omitted without negative effect- omit.

(I haven't yet checked all)

maslenitsa93 · 2018-10-23T19:03:00Z

tests/tests/operation_tests.cpp

-            BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(abs(auw_tokens - total_comment_fund.reward_fund().amount.value) < allowed_tokens_delta, true);
-            BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(fabs(0.25 - modeled_voters_reward_percent) < allowed_percent_delta, true);
+            APPROX_CHECK_DOUBLE_EQUAL(0.25, voters_reward_percent, allowed_percent_delta);
+            APPROX_CHECK_EQUAL(auw_tokens, total_comment_fund.reward_fund().amount.value, allowed_tokens_delta);


APPROX_CHECK_EQUAL uses <=. Your APPROX_CHECK_DOUBLE_EQUAL uses <. Inconsistency.
And if it is allowed delta - you should use <=.

Isn't it better to name it APPROX_CHECK_EQUAL_DOUBLE?

afalaleev

Fix the last comment.
Rebase to one commit.

It is ready to merge.

afalaleev · 2018-10-24T05:48:05Z

libraries/chain/database.cpp

+                        // to_curators case
+                        if (c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators && itr->last_update >= auw_time) {
+                            claim += ((auction_window_reward * weight) / votes_after_auction_window_weight).to_uint64();
+                            if (c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators && !heaviest_vote_after_auw_founded) {


Duplicate checking on c.auction_window_reward_destination == protocol::to_curators
Remove it.

AKorpusenko added enhancement core hardfork high labels Sep 26, 2018

AKorpusenko added this to the 0.19.0 milestone Sep 26, 2018

AKorpusenko self-assigned this Sep 26, 2018

AKorpusenko requested a review from afalaleev September 26, 2018 07:29

afalaleev suggested changes Sep 26, 2018

View reviewed changes

AKorpusenko added the WIP work in progress (4 wip bot) label Sep 28, 2018

afalaleev suggested changes Oct 1, 2018

View reviewed changes

AKorpusenko removed the WIP work in progress (4 wip bot) label Oct 3, 2018

afalaleev self-requested a review October 10, 2018 08:11

afalaleev suggested changes Oct 10, 2018

View reviewed changes

afalaleev suggested changes Oct 11, 2018

View reviewed changes

afalaleev requested a review from maslenitsa93 October 23, 2018 05:56

maslenitsa93 suggested changes Oct 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

afalaleev suggested changes Oct 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

afalaleev force-pushed the 898-auction-window-mechanics-improvements branch from a07219b to c4edde9 Compare October 24, 2018 10:38

AKorpusenko force-pushed the 898-auction-window-mechanics-improvements branch from c4edde9 to 0dcec22 Compare October 24, 2018 10:41

afalaleev force-pushed the 898-auction-window-mechanics-improvements branch 3 times, most recently from cccb4e6 to 4f3429d Compare October 24, 2018 11:46

Added improvements to auction_window. #898

fdc0aac

afalaleev force-pushed the 898-auction-window-mechanics-improvements branch from 4f3429d to fdc0aac Compare October 24, 2018 12:55

afalaleev approved these changes Oct 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

afalaleev merged commit f021501 into golos-v0.19.0 Oct 24, 2018

afalaleev deleted the 898-auction-window-mechanics-improvements branch October 24, 2018 13:33


		comment_mode mode = first_payout;

		protocol::auction_window_reward_destination_type auction_window_reward_destination = protocol::destination_not_set;



		votes_after_auction_window_weight = total_weight -
		c.votes_in_auction_window_weight - c.auction_window_weight;

Added improvements to auction_window. #898 #963

Added improvements to auction_window. #898 #963

Conversation

AKorpusenko commented Sep 26, 2018

afalaleev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

afalaleev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

afalaleev Oct 11, 2018 • 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

afalaleev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

afalaleev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

afalaleev Oct 11, 2018 • 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

afalaleev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maslenitsa93 Oct 23, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maslenitsa93 Oct 23, 2018 • 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

maslenitsa93 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maslenitsa93 Oct 23, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AKorpusenko Oct 23, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

afalaleev Oct 11, 2018 •

edited

afalaleev Oct 11, 2018 •

edited

maslenitsa93 Oct 23, 2018 •

edited

maslenitsa93 Oct 23, 2018 •

edited

maslenitsa93 Oct 23, 2018 •

edited

AKorpusenko Oct 23, 2018 •

edited

maslenitsa93 Oct 23, 2018 •

edited

maslenitsa93 left a comment •

edited

maslenitsa93 Oct 23, 2018 •

edited