Produce an error when one leaves out keyword static in an implementation of IWSAM #16175

edgarfgp · 2023-10-24T22:05:40Z

src/Compiler/Checking/CheckDeclarations.fs

…ion of IWSAM

vzarytovskii · 2023-10-31T13:15:46Z

Fix can be a simpler one, I think, needs a bunch of testing though, both positive and negative cases (like the case in the linked issues, as well a the opposite - slot is instance, but override is static):

diff --git a/src/Compiler/Checking/CheckExpressions.fs b/src/Compiler/Checking/CheckExpressions.fs
index d232a04e6..11162f71c 100644
--- a/src/Compiler/Checking/CheckExpressions.fs
+++ b/src/Compiler/Checking/CheckExpressions.fs
@@ -7012,7 +7012,7 @@ and TcObjectExpr (cenv: cenv) env tpenv (objTy, realObjTy, argopt, binds, extraI
               let overrides' =
                   [ for overrideMeth in overrides do
                         let overrideInfo, (_, thisVal, methodVars, bindingAttribs, bindingBody) = overrideMeth
-                        let (Override(_, _, id, mtps, _, _, _, isFakeEventProperty, _)) = overrideInfo
+                        let (Override(_, _, id, mtps, _, _, _, isFakeEventProperty, _, _)) = overrideInfo
 
                         if not isFakeEventProperty then
                             let searchForOverride =
diff --git a/src/Compiler/Checking/MethodOverrides.fs b/src/Compiler/Checking/MethodOverrides.fs
index bfa11de4c..221921ac6 100644
--- a/src/Compiler/Checking/MethodOverrides.fs
+++ b/src/Compiler/Checking/MethodOverrides.fs
@@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ type OverrideInfo =
         argTypes: TType list list *
         returnType: TType option *
         isFakeEventProperty: bool *
-        isCompilerGenerated: bool
+        isCompilerGenerated: bool *
+        isInstance: bool
 
     member x.CanImplement = let (Override(canImplement=a)) = x in a
 
@@ -61,6 +62,8 @@ type OverrideInfo =
     member x.ReturnType = let (Override(returnType=b)) = x in b
 
     member x.IsCompilerGenerated = let (Override(isCompilerGenerated=b)) = x in b
+    
+    member x.IsInstance = let (Override(isInstance=b)) = x in b
 
 type RequiredSlot = 
     | RequiredSlot of methodInfo: MethInfo * isOptional: bool
@@ -104,7 +107,7 @@ exception OverrideDoesntOverride of DisplayEnv * OverrideInfo * MethInfo option
 module DispatchSlotChecking =
 
     /// Print the signature of an override to a buffer as part of an error message
-    let PrintOverrideToBuffer denv os (Override(_, _, id, methTypars, memberToParentInst, argTys, retTy, _, _)) = 
+    let PrintOverrideToBuffer denv os (Override(_, _, id, methTypars, memberToParentInst, argTys, retTy, _, _, _)) = 
        let denv = { denv with showTyparBinding = true }
        let retTy = (retTy  |> GetFSharpViewOfReturnType denv.g)
        let argInfos = 
@@ -136,7 +139,7 @@ module DispatchSlotChecking =
         let (CompiledSig (argTys, retTy, fmethTypars, ttpinst)) = CompiledSigOfMeth g amap m minfo
 
         let isFakeEventProperty = minfo.IsFSharpEventPropertyMethod
-        Override(parentType, minfo.ApparentEnclosingTyconRef, mkSynId m nm, fmethTypars, ttpinst, argTys, retTy, isFakeEventProperty, false)
+        Override(parentType, minfo.ApparentEnclosingTyconRef, mkSynId m nm, fmethTypars, ttpinst, argTys, retTy, isFakeEventProperty, false, minfo.IsInstance)
 
     /// Get the override info for a value being used to implement a dispatch slot.
     let GetTypeMemberOverrideInfo g reqdTy (overrideBy: ValRef) = 
@@ -175,7 +178,7 @@ module DispatchSlotChecking =
                 //CanImplementAnySlot  <<----- Change to this to enable implicit interface implementation
 
         let isFakeEventProperty = overrideBy.IsFSharpEventProperty(g)
-        Override(implKind, overrideBy.MemberApparentEntity, mkSynId overrideBy.Range nm, memberMethodTypars, memberToParentInst, argTys, retTy, isFakeEventProperty, overrideBy.IsCompilerGenerated)
+        Override(implKind, overrideBy.MemberApparentEntity, mkSynId overrideBy.Range nm, memberMethodTypars, memberToParentInst, argTys, retTy, isFakeEventProperty, overrideBy.IsCompilerGenerated, overrideBy.IsInstanceMember)
 
     /// Get the override information for an object expression method being used to implement dispatch slots
     let GetObjectExprOverrideInfo g amap (implTy, id: Ident, memberFlags, ty, arityInfo, bindingAttribs, rhsExpr) = 
@@ -200,7 +203,7 @@ module DispatchSlotChecking =
                     CanImplementAnyClassHierarchySlot
                     //CanImplementAnySlot  <<----- Change to this to enable implicit interface implementation
             let isFakeEventProperty = CompileAsEvent g bindingAttribs
-            let overrideByInfo = Override(implKind, tcrefOfAppTy g implTy, id, tps, [], argTys, retTy, isFakeEventProperty, false)
+            let overrideByInfo = Override(implKind, tcrefOfAppTy g implTy, id, tps, [], argTys, retTy, isFakeEventProperty, false, memberFlags.IsInstance)
             overrideByInfo, (baseValOpt, thisv, vs, bindingAttribs, rhsExpr)
         | _ -> 
             error(InternalError("Unexpected shape for object expression override", id.idRange))
@@ -227,7 +230,7 @@ module DispatchSlotChecking =
         
     /// Check if an override is a partial match for the requirements for a dispatch slot except for the name.
     let IsSigPartialMatch g (dispatchSlot: MethInfo) compiledSig overrideBy =
-        let (Override(_, _, _, methTypars, _, argTys, _retTy, _, _)) = overrideBy
+        let (Override(_, _, _, methTypars, _, argTys, _retTy, _, _, _)) = overrideBy
         let (CompiledSig (vargTys, _, fvmethTypars, _)) = compiledSig
         methTypars.Length = fvmethTypars.Length &&
         IsTyparKindMatch compiledSig overrideBy && 
@@ -249,7 +252,7 @@ module DispatchSlotChecking =
      
     /// Check if an override exactly matches the requirements for a dispatch slot except for the name.
     let IsSigExactMatch g amap m dispatchSlot overrideBy =
-        let (Override(_, _, _, methTypars, memberToParentInst, argTys, retTy, _, _)) = overrideBy
+        let (Override(_, _, _, methTypars, memberToParentInst, argTys, retTy, _, _, _)) = overrideBy
         let compiledSig = CompiledSigOfMeth g amap m dispatchSlot
         IsSigPartialMatch g dispatchSlot compiledSig overrideBy &&
         let (CompiledSig (vargTys, vrty, fvmethTypars, ttpinst)) = compiledSig
@@ -300,7 +303,8 @@ module DispatchSlotChecking =
     /// Check if an override exactly matches the requirements for a dispatch slot.
     let IsExactMatch g amap m dispatchSlot overrideBy =
         IsNameMatch dispatchSlot overrideBy &&
-        IsSigExactMatch g amap m dispatchSlot overrideBy
+        IsSigExactMatch g amap m dispatchSlot overrideBy &&
+        dispatchSlot.IsInstance = overrideBy.IsInstance
 
     /// Check if an override implements a dispatch slot 
     let OverrideImplementsDispatchSlot g amap m dispatchSlot availPriorOverride =
@@ -386,7 +390,7 @@ module DispatchSlotChecking =
                             noimpl()
                         | [ overrideBy ] ->
 
-                            let (Override(_, _, _, methTypars, _, argTys, _, _, _)) = overrideBy
+                            let (Override(_, _, _, methTypars, _, argTys, _, _, _, _)) = overrideBy
 
                             let moreThanOnePossibleDispatchSlot =
                                 dispatchSlots
@@ -965,4 +969,3 @@ let GetAbstractPropInfosForSynPropertyDecl(infoReader: InfoReader, ad, memberNam
         
     let dispatchSlots = pinfos |> List.filter (fun pinfo -> pinfo.IsVirtualProperty)
     dispatchSlots
-
diff --git a/src/Compiler/Checking/MethodOverrides.fsi b/src/Compiler/Checking/MethodOverrides.fsi
index d18a8cdc6..ac72aa0ca 100644
--- a/src/Compiler/Checking/MethodOverrides.fsi
+++ b/src/Compiler/Checking/MethodOverrides.fsi
@@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ type OverrideInfo =
         argTypes: TType list list *
         returnType: TType option *
         isFakeEventProperty: bool *
-        isCompilerGenerated: bool
+        isCompilerGenerated: bool *
+        isInstance: bool
 
     member ArgTypes: TType list list
 
@@ -50,6 +51,8 @@ type OverrideInfo =
 
     member ReturnType: TType option
 
+    member IsInstance: bool
+
 type RequiredSlot =
     | RequiredSlot of methodInfo: MethInfo * isOptional: bool
     | DefaultInterfaceImplementationSlot of methodInfo: MethInfo * isOptional: bool * possiblyNoMostSpecific: bool

vzarytovskii · 2023-10-31T13:17:25Z

Maybe also verifying that tooling (service tests) light up the issue too. And maybe do different comparison between two bools, to make sure we don't box.

Maybe also check that it plays well with mixed (static+instance) members on both interface and implementation.

edgarfgp · 2023-10-31T14:13:59Z

Thanks for the detailed analysis, @vzarytovskii. Seems easier fix in my last commit(Lets see what the CI says). I will have look at your implementation suggestion after :)

Edit: Regarding the error message: Reuse FS0855 or create a new error number etc. ?

vzarytovskii · 2023-10-31T14:25:41Z

Thanks for the detailed analysis, @vzarytovskii. Seems easier fix in my last commit(Lets see what the CI says).

It looks like it adds a bunch more. Change in IsExactMatch will also cover object expressions for example (actually one more idea for the test).

I will have look at your implementation suggestion after :)

Edit: Regarding the error message: Reuse FS0855 or create a new error number etc. ?

The change I posted will currently reuse existing error (FS0017), which makes sense, I think, since it's technically not finding the correct override.

So, when we have something like:

type IOperation =
    static abstract member Execute: unit -> unit

type FaultyOperation() =
    interface IOperation with
        member _.Execute() = ()

it will result in

error FS0017: The member 'Execute: unit -> unit' does not have the correct type to override the corresponding abstract method.

Here, when we emit it, we can do additional analysis to see what's not matching (if it's the isInstace flag, then we can produce different warning).

A slight problem might be when we have something like:

type IOperation =
    static abstract member Execute: unit -> unit

type FaultyOperation() =
    interface IOperation with
        member _.Execute() = ()
        static member Execute() = ()

It will still produce FS0017 on the first member, which is technically correct, but probably better to produce FS0855: No abstract or interface member was found that corresponds to this override, which again, probably an additional check somewhere for the match of isInstance.

I can look at both if you'd like (probably tomorrow, slightly under the weather today).

Edit: After thinking about it again, I guess this info carried in the Override type is correct way to go. We can then reuse it in nice printing, in object expressions, etc, without too many changes.

edgarfgp · 2023-10-31T16:06:56Z

@vzarytovskii the Last commit uses your suggestion and adds more tests.

I can look at both if you'd like (probably tomorrow, slightly under the weather today).

Hope you feel better tomorrow, Yes, please. I think we are close to having a fix for this. Thanks in advance

vzarytovskii · 2023-10-31T16:07:46Z

@vzarytovskii the Last commit uses your suggestion and adds more tests.

I can look at both if you'd like (probably tomorrow, slightly under the weather today).

Hope you feel better tomorrow, Yes, please. I think we are close to having a fix for this. Thanks in advance

Cool, do you mind if I add to this PR?

edgarfgp · 2023-10-31T16:11:42Z

Cool, do you mind if I add to this PR?

Not at all. I will be able to say that I worked with you in a fix ;)

smoothdeveloper · 2023-10-31T18:12:33Z

should the message be either:

FS0855: No abstract or interface instance member was found that corresponds to this override

or

FS0855: No abstract or interface static member was found that corresponds to this override

vzarytovskii · 2023-10-31T18:15:21Z

should the message be either:

FS0855: No abstract or interface instance member was found that corresponds to this override

or

FS0855: No abstract or interface static member was found that corresponds to this override

That's why I mentioned why we can adjust it in place we throw/create it.

vzarytovskii · 2023-11-01T13:18:30Z

should the message be either:

FS0855: No abstract or interface instance member was found that corresponds to this override

or

FS0855: No abstract or interface static member was found that corresponds to this override

Thinking about these messages again. These are not overrides we're talking about here. It's method implementations, so FS0017 sounds reasonable with some adjustments to messaging.

Will play with it a little, to see where's the easiest we can produce that message.

vzarytovskii · 2023-11-01T15:56:52Z

Fixed a bunch of stuff, I will probably need some help with figuring out tests, and gaps in the fix.

Now the behaviour is the following (NOTE: all of those are from FSI, and not compiler, so will show only 1st error):

module StaticAbstractBug =
    type IOperation =
        static abstract member Execute: unit -> unit
        abstract member Execute2: unit -> unit
        static abstract member Property: int
        abstract member Property2: int
        static abstract Property3 : int with get, set

    type FaultyOperation() =
        interface IOperation with
            member _.Execute() = ()
            member _.Execute2() = ()
            member this.Property = 0
            member this.Property2 = 0
            member this.Property3 = 0
            member this.Property3 with set value = ()

will yield


              member _.Execute() = ()
  ---------------------^^^^^^^

/Users/u/code/fsharp2/src/stdin(16,22): error FS0855: No abstract or interface member was found that corresponds to this override

module StaticAbstractBug =
    type IOperation =
        static abstract member Execute: unit -> unit
        abstract member Execute: unit -> bool
        static abstract member Property: int
        abstract member Property: int

    type FaultyOperation() =
        interface IOperation with
            member _.Execute() = ()
            member _.Execute() = false
            member this.Property = 0
            member this.Property = false

will yield

             member _.Execute() = ()
  ---------------------------------^^
/Users/u/code/fsharp2/src/stdin(31,34): error FS0001: This expression was expected to have type
    'bool'    
but here has type
    'unit'

Need a sanity check, that this one is correct. It sees a non-static slot, which has bool as return type, but sees an implementation with unit.

module StaticAbstractBug =
    type IFoo<'T> =
       abstract DoIt: unit -> string
       static abstract Other : int -> int
       static abstract member Property: int
       abstract member Property2: int
       static abstract Property3 : int with get, set
    type MyFoo = {
       Value : int
    } with
      interface IFoo<MyFoo> with
        member me.DoIt() = string me.Value
        member _.Other(value) = value + 1
        member this.Property = 0
        member this.Property2 = 0
        member this.Property3 = 0
        member this.Property3 with set value = ()

yields

          member _.Other(value) = value + 1
  -----------------^^^^^

/Users/u/code/fsharp2/src/stdin(47,18): error FS0855: No abstract or interface member was found that corresponds to this override

I will check the rest and fix tests tomorrow.

vzarytovskii · 2023-11-01T16:13:25Z

Updated tests. Need some sanity check on diagnostics.

src/Compiler/Checking/MethodOverrides.fs

vzarytovskii · 2023-11-01T17:50:15Z

tl;dr it's for sure not breaking and doesn't (shouldn't) introduce any new/changed messaging to not-static members, but will fix the original issue + give (imo) a bit more precise issues when we have mixed static and instance members in interface and implementation.

edgarfgp · 2023-11-02T11:27:55Z

Thanks. I don't think I did anything with Properties, though, so that might be the gap.
The main change now is pretty much we distinguish not only name, arity and types but also instance-ness.

@vzarytovskii Updated and added more testing, and yeah we are not reporting Properties both in positive and negative tests

Do you want to look into this, or should we create a separate issue to address this (Arguably our fix already fixed the linked issues)?

vzarytovskii · 2023-11-02T11:33:53Z

not reporting Properties

How can you give an example of what's expected and what's happening?

edgarfgp · 2023-11-02T11:39:45Z

not reporting Properties

How can you give an example of what's expected and what's happening?

Actual: Only reporting on instance members

Expected: Report on instance members and Properties

    [<Fact>]
    let ``Produce an error for interface with static abstract member that is implemented as instance member`` () =
        Fsx """
module StaticAbstractBug =
    type IFoo<'T> =
       static abstract member Property: int
       abstract member Property2: int
    type MyFoo = {
       Value : int
    } with
      interface IFoo<MyFoo> with
        member this.Property = 0
        member this.Property2 = 0
        """
         |> withOptions [ "--nowarn:3535" ]
         |> withLangVersion80
         |> compile
         |> shouldFail

Actual: Only reporting on instance members

Expected: Report on instance members and Properties

    [<Fact>]
    let ``Produces errors when includes keyword "static" when implementing a non generic interface in a type`` () =
        Fsx """
module StaticAbstractBug =
    type IFoo<'T> =
       abstract member Property: int
    type MyFoo = {
       Value : int
    } with
      interface IFoo<MyFoo> with
        static member Property = 0
        """
         |> withLangVersion80
         |> typecheck
         |> shouldFail

vzarytovskii · 2023-11-02T12:38:14Z

So, the minimum repro would be:
Interface: have 1 static method, 1 static property
Implementation: have 1 instance method, 1 instance property

We expect both to be reported as missing/non-matching?

edgarfgp · 2023-11-02T12:38:23Z

Ok. I should easy based on the fix. Should be easy to extend and check for the properties using ie :

3856,tcNoStaticPropertyFoundForOverride,"No static abstract property was found that corresponds to this override"

let instanceExpected = memberFlags.IsInstance
if instanceExpected then
    errorR(Error(FSComp.SR.tcNoPropertyFoundForOverride(), memberId.idRange))
else
    errorR (Error(FSComp.SR.tcNoStaticPropertyFoundForOverride (), memberId.idRange))

T-Gro · 2023-11-02T14:19:18Z

Before this gets merged, @edgarfgp could you please also rename names used in the code (e.g. keys used in FsComp.txt) to call them implements and not overrides?

edgarfgp · 2023-11-02T14:34:24Z

Before this gets merged, could you please also rename names used in the code (e.g. keys used in FsComp.txt) to call them implements and not overrides?

Sure

vzarytovskii · 2023-11-02T18:55:48Z

Ok. I should easy based on the fix. Should be easy to extend and check for the properties using ie :

3856,tcNoStaticPropertyFoundForOverride,"No static abstract property was found that corresponds to this override"
let instanceExpected = memberFlags.IsInstance

if instanceExpected then

    errorR(Error(FSComp.SR.tcNoPropertyFoundForOverride(), memberId.idRange))

else

    errorR (Error(FSComp.SR.tcNoStaticPropertyFoundForOverride (), memberId.idRange))     

It's not only about adding message. It needs a change in logic when searching for properties' slots.

edgarfgp · 2023-11-02T19:10:40Z

It's not only about adding message. It needs a change in logic when searching for properties' slots.

Yeah I figured after giving is try 😅.

vzarytovskii · 2023-11-02T19:50:04Z

It's not only about adding message. It needs a change in logic when searching for properties' slots.

Yeah I figured after giving is try 😅.

I'll fix it. Is my previous comment true? Is it only thing we should do?

edgarfgp · 2023-11-02T19:54:06Z

We expect both to be reported as missing/non-matching?

Sorry I missed this . Yea that would be ideal to report in both scenarios

vzarytovskii · 2023-11-06T15:12:40Z

I will get back to it tomorrow, if that's ok.

edgarfgp · 2023-11-06T15:15:11Z

I will get back to it tomorrow, if that's ok.

No worries. Thanks for taking the time Vlad

vzarytovskii

Thanks!

smoothdeveloper reviewed Oct 24, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/Compiler/Checking/CheckDeclarations.fs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

auduchinok reviewed Oct 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/Compiler/Checking/CheckDeclarations.fs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/Compiler/Checking/CheckDeclarations.fs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

edgarfgp added 7 commits October 30, 2023 15:36

Produce an error when one leaves out keyword static in an implementat…

bd51817

…ion of IWSAM

Extract logic

a3dd7cd

More tests

f45c3ce

more tests

a4b7ac1

more tests

c616274

Move the chekc to a more appropiate place

5ad9c1a

More tests

006b35c

edgarfgp added 2 commits October 31, 2023 14:06

more tests

ae4caab

fantomas

f6ef829

Trying Vlad's version

dd01d77

edgarfgp marked this pull request as ready for review October 31, 2023 16:07

edgarfgp requested a review from a team as a code owner October 31, 2023 16:07

WIP

8a00e06

vzarytovskii added 2 commits November 1, 2023 17:11

tests

774e34f

Merge

1a43849

vzarytovskii reviewed Nov 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

src/Compiler/Checking/MethodOverrides.fs Show resolved Hide resolved

edgarfgp added 2 commits November 2, 2023 09:53

Fix test

8172618

More testing

d2e7548

update tests

feed043

edgarfgp added 2 commits November 2, 2023 17:47

[<FactForNETCOREAPP>]

80c5c1f

Merge branch 'main' into new-error-when-one-leaves-out-keyword-static

bc7d220

Merge branch 'main' into new-error-when-one-leaves-out-keyword-static

fb54574

edgarfgp and others added 4 commits November 7, 2023 17:24

Merge branch 'main' into new-error-when-one-leaves-out-keyword-static

f7e02f4

Merge branch 'main' into new-error-when-one-leaves-out-keyword-static

a1100b3

Check properties

0ab3139

Update tests

2fd89bc

edgarfgp requested review from vzarytovskii and auduchinok November 10, 2023 09:16

vzarytovskii approved these changes Nov 10, 2023

View reviewed changes

vzarytovskii merged commit 977323a into dotnet:main Nov 10, 2023

edgarfgp mentioned this pull request Nov 10, 2023

Fix internal error when implementing IWSAM in object expression #16250

Merged

allisonchou mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2023

[Automated] PRs inserted in VS build main-34313.17 #16269

Closed

Produce an error when one leaves out keyword static in an implementation of IWSAM #16175

Produce an error when one leaves out keyword static in an implementation of IWSAM #16175

Uh oh!

Conversation

edgarfgp commented Oct 24, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Oct 31, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Oct 31, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Oct 31, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Oct 31, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Oct 31, 2023

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Oct 31, 2023

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Oct 31, 2023

Uh oh!

smoothdeveloper commented Oct 31, 2023

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Oct 31, 2023

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Nov 1, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Nov 1, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Nov 1, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Nov 1, 2023

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Nov 2, 2023

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Nov 2, 2023

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Nov 2, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Actual: Only reporting on instance members

Expected: Report on instance members and Properties

Actual: Only reporting on instance members

Expected: Report on instance members and Properties

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Nov 2, 2023

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Nov 2, 2023

Uh oh!

T-Gro commented Nov 2, 2023

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Nov 2, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Nov 2, 2023

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Nov 2, 2023

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Nov 2, 2023

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Nov 2, 2023

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii commented Nov 6, 2023

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Nov 6, 2023

Uh oh!

vzarytovskii left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

edgarfgp commented Oct 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

vzarytovskii commented Oct 31, 2023 •

edited

Loading

vzarytovskii commented Oct 31, 2023 •

edited

Loading

edgarfgp commented Oct 31, 2023 •

edited

Loading

vzarytovskii commented Oct 31, 2023 •

edited

Loading

vzarytovskii commented Nov 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

vzarytovskii commented Nov 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

vzarytovskii commented Nov 1, 2023 •

edited

Loading

edgarfgp commented Nov 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading

edgarfgp commented Nov 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading