Fix 'else without if' parsing - better error msg #28115

wachulski · 2018-06-26T11:22:03Z

[Note: there are merge commits in this PR, so it should not be squashed. -- jcouv]

Instead of a general syntax error } expected message we want
sth like Syntax error 'if' expected.

wachulski · 2018-06-26T11:24:21Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Operations/CSharpOperationFactory.cs

+                     // Semantic model has a special case here that we match: if the underlying syntax is missing, don't create a conversion expression,
+                     // and instead directly return the operand, which will be a BoundBadExpression. When we generate a node for the BoundBadExpression,
+                     // the resulting IOperation will also have a null Type.
+                     Debug.Assert(boundOperand.Kind == BoundKind.BadExpression ||


I need your help, please.

Trying to copy the idea from 'try-catch-finally' parsing I created missing if (true) {} for existing else clause. Then, I got the runtime error of failing an assert.

Could you suggest what I should do with this?

Which test failed with an assert?

From the CI log, I see only one test that failed (IIfstatementWithStatementMissing). I think that test expected some parsing diagnostics which just need to be updated.

In reply to: 198106984 [](ancestors = 198106984)

That was live debugging session in VS. Repro code as in the image attached to the description of this PR.

Anyway, I'll try what @CyrusNajmabadi suggests first.

jcouv · 2018-06-26T17:34:02Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs

+                    SyntaxToken.CreateMissing(SyntaxKind.OpenBraceToken, null, null),
+                    default,
+                    SyntaxToken.CreateMissing(SyntaxKind.CloseBraceToken, null, null));
+            }


Please add some parsing tests to demonstrate the shape of the parse tree after the change. Look at StatementParsingTests.ParsePrivate as an example.

Note that the M method will print out the correct code, but you first have to uncomment #define PARSING_TESTS_DUMP in src\Compilers\CSharp\Test\Syntax\Parsing\ParsingTests.cs. #Closed

CyrusNajmabadi · 2018-06-26T17:35:14Z

@jcouv Can you help shephard this in? #Closed

jcouv · 2018-06-26T17:46:49Z

@CyrusNajmabadi Yes, that's what I'm doing. #Closed

CyrusNajmabadi · 2018-06-26T18:22:59Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs

+                elseClause = this.AddErrorToFirstToken(elseClause, ErrorCode.ERR_SyntaxError, SyntaxFacts.GetText(SyntaxKind.IfKeyword));
+
+                // synthesize missing tokens for "if (true) { }":
+                @if = SyntaxToken.CreateMissing(SyntaxKind.IfKeyword, null, null);


this seems redundant. You could just always call @if = this.EatToken(SyntaxKind.IfKeyword); above. It will do the right thing if you are/aren't on an 'if' keyword. This also means you won't need to manually add the 'ERR_SyntaxError' to the 'elseClause'.

You can do the same for all the rest of the required bits of the else. #Closed

CyrusNajmabadi · 2018-06-26T18:24:36Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs

+                statement = _syntaxFactory.Block(
+                    SyntaxToken.CreateMissing(SyntaxKind.OpenBraceToken, null, null),
+                    default,
+                    SyntaxToken.CreateMissing(SyntaxKind.CloseBraceToken, null, null));


I would not make a block here. Remember that if-statements don't require blocks for the if/else sections. Instead, just call ParseExpressionStatement. Also, add .ElseKeyword to IsInvalidSubExpression. #Closed

CyrusNajmabadi · 2018-06-26T18:25:35Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs

+                openParen = SyntaxToken.CreateMissing(SyntaxKind.OpenParenToken, null, null);
+                condition = this._syntaxFactory.LiteralExpression(
+                    SyntaxKind.TrueLiteralExpression, 
+                    SyntaxToken.CreateMissing(SyntaxKind.TrueKeyword, null, null));


don't make a true-expression. just call ParseExpression(). #Closed

Basically, just keep the parsing logic the same as it was before except for the point that you'll call statement = this.ParseEmbeddedStatement();. There, you want to just check if you're on an 'else' keyword. In that case, you don't want to call ParseEmbeddedStatement (since you now support 'else' starting a statement). so i would expect:

var @if = this.EatToken(SyntaxKind.IfKeyword); var openParen = this.EatToken(SyntaxKind.OpenParenToken); var condition = this.ParseExpressionCore(); var closeParen = this.EatToken(SyntaxKind.CloseParenToken); // comment this line appropriately. var statement = this.CurrentToken.Kind == SyntaxKind.ElseKeyword ? this.ParseExpressionStatement() : this.ParseEmbeddedStatement(); var elseClause = ParseElseClauseOpt(); ``` #Closed

Thanks guys! That helped a lot. Although I see it generates many more syntax error entries (like missing (, ) etc.) but I also see this is a common approach here. At least syntax error, missing if comes first in such series and therefore should put people on good track of finding the root cause. #Closed

yup yup! #Closed

chborl · 2018-06-28T17:52:43Z

@dotnet-bot retest windows_debug_vs-integration_prtest please #Closed

333fred · 2018-06-28T18:29:55Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs

-            var statement = this.ParseEmbeddedStatement();
-            var elseClause = ParseElseClauseOpt();
-
+            // when 'if' is missing, then we parse an expression statement in a stadard way (which adds missing syntax properly)


stadard [](start = 80, length = 7)

stadard [](start = 80, length = 7)

Typo: stadard -> standard #Closed

333fred · 2018-06-28T19:51:01Z

@wachulski could you please add some IOperation tests for similar scenarios to your syntax tests? You'll want to add them in src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/IOperation/IOperationTests_IIfStatement.cs. To create the test method:

Copy/paste an existing test method and rename. Make sure you use a standard IOperation test and not a dataflow test, like https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/master/src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/IOperation/IOperationTests_IIfStatement.cs#L15.
Modify the test source. You'll need a full program, not just a one-liner like syntax tests. My suggestion is just a simple method with a body of the if/else/else or other structure.
Surround the section you want to test with /*<bind>*/ ... /*</bind>*/. I suggest using the entire method body.
The VerifyOperationTreeForTest method has a generic parameter, which is the type of SyntaxNode surrounded by the bind tags. If you surround the whole method body, this will be BlockSyntax.
Run the test a couple of times. The first time will likely fail due to missing diagnostics, copy those over. The second time it will fail because the expected operation tree is incorrect, copy over the actual operation tree.

Feel free to ping me if you run into any issues. I'd guess you're very likely to run into binding issues, and when those are resolved I'd guess you're likely to run into IOperation factory issues :). My gut feeling is that, for this case, IOperation should probably produce an IInvalidOperation, with things in the block being children of that block. #Closed

jcouv · 2018-06-28T20:34:59Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Syntax/Parsing/StatementParsingTests.cs

+                    N(SyntaxKind.OpenBraceToken);
+                    N(SyntaxKind.CloseBraceToken);
+                }
+                N(SyntaxKind.ElseClause);


ElseClause [](start = 29, length = 10)

The second else { } isn't captured, since this code parses as two statement. You may need to wrap the whole thing in a block { ... } or use UsingTree instead of UsingStatement.

jcouv · 2018-06-28T20:38:46Z

@wachulski Aside from Fred's suggestion, I have a small test nit. Otherwise things look good. Thanks

I'm going to retarget this PR to the features/compiler branch, because master is currently meant for 15.8 which is close to shipping (so the bug bar is high). #Closed

CyrusNajmabadi · 2018-06-28T21:22:07Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Syntax/Parsing/StatementParsingTests.cs

+        [Fact]
+        public void ParseElseKeywordPlacedAsIfEmbeddedStatement()
+        {
+            UsingStatement("if (a) else {}",


can we have an "else { } else { }" as well? #Closed

There is ParseSubsequentElseWithoutPrecedingIfStatement already with its UsingStatement("{ if (a) { } else { } else { } }". Do you mean UsingStatement("{ if (a) else { } else { } }"? #Closed

Nope. just else { } else { } :) #Closed

Here you go: b17e8b7 #Closed

wachulski · 2018-06-29T10:19:55Z

I've been wondering whether IOperation tests that output sth like (Syntax: '/*<bind>*/e ... }') are OK, that is there are only my 2 new added UTs that produce such fragment containing '/*<bind>*/ #Closed

333fred · 2018-06-29T17:11:01Z

@wachulski if I understand your question correctly, yes it's expected that some of the nodes in the new IOperation nodes will have Syntax in the output that starts with the /*<bind>*/ trivia. We trim the Syntax when dumping the IOperation nodes, so you're only seeing a small part of the actual syntax associated with the node. #Closed

jcouv · 2018-07-03T21:50:23Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/IOperation/IOperationTests_IIfStatement.cs

+/*</bind>*/    }
+}
+";
+            string expectedOperationTree = @"


expectedOperationTree [](start = 19, length = 21)

Why aren't the second else and its block appearing in the output? #Closed

I tried to bind 2 operation statements. In 3016d83 I wrapped them in a block statement. #Closed

jcouv · 2018-07-03T21:52:36Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/IOperation/IOperationTests_IIfStatement.cs

+        }
+        else
+        {
+            Op();


Op(); [](start = 12, length = 5)

I would have expected the invocation of Op() to appear in the output. Do you know why it's missing?

jcouv

Done with review pass (iteration 2).

jcouv · 2018-07-11T23:20:36Z

@wachulski I didn't hear back from you on a couple of remaining questions. Thanks #Closed

jcouv

LGTM Thanks (iteration 3)
I'll let @AlekseyTs and @333fred comment on whether this warrants some control-flow graph (CFG) tests too.

333fred · 2018-10-29T16:41:14Z

@wachulski sorry for the delay here. I meant to take a look a month ago, and it slipped off my radar. I'm looking now. #Closed

333fred

LGTM (commit 3). @CyrusNajmabadi, did you have any other comments?

333fred · 2018-10-29T16:54:45Z

(Reopened to make sure that status checks were up to date) #Closed

333fred · 2018-10-29T16:55:05Z

@wachulski, can you please retarget this to master? #Closed

CyrusNajmabadi · 2018-10-29T17:25:10Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs

@@ -6613,6 +6613,7 @@ private StatementSyntax ParseStatementNoDeclaration(bool allowAnyExpression)
                case SyntaxKind.GotoKeyword:
                    return this.ParseGotoStatement();
                case SyntaxKind.IfKeyword:
+                case SyntaxKind.ElseKeyword:


there should probably be a comment here explaining that this is to handle error cases. #Closed

CyrusNajmabadi · 2018-10-29T17:27:10Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs

-
+            // when 'if' is missing, then we parse an expression statement in a standard way (which adds missing syntax properly)
+            // parsing embedded one expects non-null statement to be present
+            var statement = this.CurrentToken.Kind == SyntaxKind.ElseKeyword ? this.ParseExpressionStatement() : this.ParseEmbeddedStatement();


this seems to be strange (and indicates to me a change in behavior. specifically if you had if (a) else. Was it intentional? I think what you were trying to do was something more like:

var firstTokenIsElse = this.currentToken == .ElseKeyword; var @if = this.EatToken(SyntaxKind.IfKeyword); var openParen = this.EatToken(SyntaxKind.OpenParenToken); var condition = this.ParseExpressionCore(); var closeParen = this.EatToken(SyntaxKind.CloseParenToken); var statement = firstTokenIsElse ? ...

?

note: if you do want the current form, then the comment needs to be fixed up Because it applies to both when an 'if' is missing, and when tehre is no statement following the close-paren. #Closed

I followed your #28115 (comment) but most likely missed the point in the comment. I'll change the code to the what you proposed last. #Closed

gafter · 2018-10-29T20:01:10Z

I think this needs to be retargeted to master before being integrated, as we are no longer using the features/compiler branch. #Closed

…out-if-error-message * origin/master: (1712 commits) User-defined operator checks should ignore differences in tuple member names (dotnet#30774) Attempted fix for correctly reporting error CS1069 when using implicit namespaces (dotnet#30244) Invert the binding order of InitializerExpressions and CreationExpressions (dotnet#30805) Use Arcade bootstrapping scripts (dotnet#30498) Ensure that the compilers produce double.NaN values in IEEE canonical form. (dotnet#30587) Remove properties set in BeforeCommonTargets.targets Fix publishing of dependent projects Contributing page: reference Unix build instructions Delete 0 Propagate values from AbstractProject to VisualStudioProjectCreationInfo Fix publishing nuget info of dev16.0.x-vs-deps branch Revert "Add a SetProperty API for CPS to passing msbuild properties" Validate generic arguments in `using static` directives (dotnet#30737) Correct 15.9 publish data Enable test. Do not inject attribute types into .Net modules. Add a SetProperty API for CPS to passing msbuild properties Revert "add beta2 suffix to dev16 branch" Fix references Remove commit sha from package versions ...

wachulski · 2018-10-31T14:04:12Z

@gafter Retargeted #Closed

…var.

gafter · 2018-10-31T21:43:04Z

It appears there are a couple of failing unit tests. #Closed

wachulski · 2018-11-01T07:10:29Z

Yeah, Im on it From: Neal Gafter Sent: 31 October 2018 22:44 To: dotnet/roslyn Cc: Marcin Wachulski; Mention Subject: Re: [dotnet/roslyn] Fix 'else without if' parsing - better error msg(#28115) It appears there are a couple of failing unit tests. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread. #Closed

wachulski

Failing tests should be fixed now. I'm worried about the output for one edge case, details below.

wachulski · 2018-11-06T08:33:46Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Syntax/Parsing/StatementParsingTests.cs

@@ -3021,6 +3021,18 @@ public void ParseSubsequentElseWithoutPrecedingIfStatement()
        public void ParseElseKeywordPlacedAsIfEmbeddedStatement()
        {
            UsingStatement("if (a) else {}",
+                // (1,8): error CS1003: Syntax error, 'if' expected


IMO interesting (potentially misleading). I understand the original issue was about lacking missing if indication for misplaced elses. This one however for "if (a) else {}" outputs // (1,8): error CS1003: Syntax error, 'if' expected as the first diagnostic. Isn't this sth unwanted?

This was added by following the last suggestion by @CyrusNajmabadi #Closed

We could customize the error message here. EatToken takes an optional error message. If we see an 'else' we could just call EatToken(SyntaxKind.IfToken, specialId); where 'specialId' is the resource id for "'else' unexpected" or something like that. #Closed

or: "'else' cannot start a statement"

#Closed

Ok, I'll add the message #Closed

What is wrong with this error message? It sounds pretty clear to me. #Closed

Ah I see, the example is if (a) else { }? That is indeed odd (even though it makes sense). I would expect something like "missing statement". #Closed

…out-if-error-message * origin/master: (174 commits) Add Compilers filter for Roslyn (dotnet#30880) Remove NonNullTypes context and other unnecessary information stored in TypeSymbolWithAnnotations. (dotnet#30913) Update BoundCall method based on receiver nullability (dotnet#31000) Make nullabiulity inference associative and commutative (dotnet#30990) Async-streams: minimal test for IOperation and CFG. Improve diagnostics (dotnet#30363) Add src. Add test. Remove dead code Update the build status table Script for generating our build status tables Add parsing tests to compiler benchmarks (dotnet#31033) Fix Edit and Continue in CPS projects Add comment Sorting. Save work Address PR feedback only produce optprof data on an official build Add bunch of exclusions to dead code analysis for special methods Disable WinRT tests on Linux (dotnet#31026) Change prerelease version to beta2 (dotnet#31017) ... # Conflicts: # src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/CSharpResources.resx # src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Errors/ErrorCode.cs

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Syntax/Parsing/StatementParsingTests.cs

wachulski · 2018-11-12T13:12:52Z

Ok, I changed the message. Now it's 'else' cannot start a statement. I'm still not convinced (i.e. maybe the previous version 'if' expected was actually better), as the original issue was about this:

while(true)
{
    if (false)
    {

    }
}
else {

}

Expected Behavior:
Error says something regarding else without a connected if
Actual Behavior:
CS 1513 } expected

What's your thought?

333fred

LGTM (commit 8)

jcouv

LGTM Thanks (iteration 8)

jcouv · 2018-11-12T22:28:12Z

Merged. Thanks @wachulski

jcouv · 2018-11-12T22:28:51Z

Note: this will first show up in dev16 preview3.

wachulski requested a review from a team as a code owner June 26, 2018 11:22

wachulski changed the title ~~Fix 'else without if' parsing - better error msg~~ WIP: Fix 'else without if' parsing - better error msg Jun 26, 2018

wachulski commented Jun 26, 2018

View reviewed changes

jcouv added Area-Compilers Community The pull request was submitted by a contributor who is not a Microsoft employee. labels Jun 26, 2018

jcouv reviewed Jun 26, 2018

View reviewed changes

jcouv self-assigned this Jun 26, 2018

jcouv added this to the 16.0 milestone Jun 26, 2018

CyrusNajmabadi reviewed Jun 26, 2018

View reviewed changes

wachulski force-pushed the fix/27866/else-without-if-error-message branch from 948fe8d to e693854 Compare June 28, 2018 08:15

wachulski changed the title ~~WIP: Fix 'else without if' parsing - better error msg~~ Fix 'else without if' parsing - better error msg Jun 28, 2018

333fred reviewed Jun 28, 2018

View reviewed changes

jcouv reviewed Jun 28, 2018

View reviewed changes

jcouv changed the base branch from master to features/compiler June 28, 2018 20:38

wachulski force-pushed the fix/27866/else-without-if-error-message branch from e693854 to f605c4d Compare June 28, 2018 21:05

CyrusNajmabadi reviewed Jun 28, 2018

View reviewed changes

wachulski force-pushed the fix/27866/else-without-if-error-message branch from f605c4d to 1ef941a Compare June 29, 2018 08:34

jcouv reviewed Jul 3, 2018

View reviewed changes

jcouv approved these changes Sep 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

333fred approved these changes Oct 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

333fred closed this Oct 29, 2018

333fred reopened this Oct 29, 2018

CyrusNajmabadi reviewed Oct 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

wachulski requested a review from a team as a code owner October 31, 2018 12:44

wachulski changed the base branch from features/compiler to master October 31, 2018 14:03

Add a comment for ElseKeyword case and replace comments with a local …

7117081

…var.

Fix failing tests for edge case 'if' parsing

f406af8

wachulski commented Nov 6, 2018

View reviewed changes

wachulski added 2 commits November 12, 2018 13:41

Fix 'if-else' parsing, dedicated msg for 'else' without 'if'

31090b4

wachulski commented Nov 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Syntax/Parsing/StatementParsingTests.cs Show resolved Hide resolved

333fred approved these changes Nov 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

jcouv approved these changes Nov 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

jcouv merged commit 8176685 into dotnet:master Nov 12, 2018

jcouv modified the milestones: 16.0, 16.0.P3 Nov 12, 2018

Fix 'else without if' parsing - better error msg #28115

Fix 'else without if' parsing - better error msg #28115

Conversation

wachulski commented Jun 26, 2018 • edited by jcouv

wachulski Jun 26, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Jun 26, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wachulski Jun 27, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Jun 26, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi commented Jun 26, 2018 • edited by jcouv

jcouv commented Jun 26, 2018 • edited

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 26, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 26, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 26, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 26, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wachulski Jun 27, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 27, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chborl commented Jun 28, 2018 • edited by jcouv

333fred Jun 28, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

333fred commented Jun 28, 2018 • edited by jcouv

jcouv Jun 28, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv commented Jun 28, 2018 • edited

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 28, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wachulski Jun 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wachulski Jun 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wachulski commented Jun 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

333fred commented Jun 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

jcouv Jul 3, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wachulski Aug 9, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Jul 3, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv commented Jul 11, 2018 • edited

jcouv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

333fred commented Oct 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

333fred left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

333fred commented Oct 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

333fred commented Oct 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 29, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wachulski Oct 31, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gafter commented Oct 29, 2018 • edited by jcouv

wachulski commented Oct 31, 2018 • edited by jcouv

gafter commented Oct 31, 2018 • edited by jcouv

wachulski commented Nov 1, 2018 via email • edited by jcouv

wachulski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wachulski Nov 6, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Nov 6, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Nov 6, 2018 • edited by jcouv

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wachulski Nov 7, 2018 • edited by jcouv

wachulski commented Jun 26, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

jcouv Jun 26, 2018 •

edited

CyrusNajmabadi commented Jun 26, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

jcouv commented Jun 26, 2018 •

edited

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 26, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 26, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 26, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 26, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

wachulski Jun 27, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 27, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

chborl commented Jun 28, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

333fred Jun 28, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

333fred commented Jun 28, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

jcouv commented Jun 28, 2018 •

edited

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 28, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

wachulski Jun 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

CyrusNajmabadi Jun 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

wachulski Jun 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

wachulski commented Jun 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

333fred commented Jun 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

jcouv Jul 3, 2018 •

edited

wachulski Aug 9, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

jcouv commented Jul 11, 2018 •

edited

333fred commented Oct 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

333fred commented Oct 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

333fred commented Oct 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

wachulski Oct 31, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

gafter commented Oct 29, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

wachulski commented Oct 31, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

gafter commented Oct 31, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

wachulski commented Nov 1, 2018 via email •

edited by jcouv

wachulski Nov 6, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

CyrusNajmabadi Nov 6, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

CyrusNajmabadi Nov 6, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

wachulski Nov 7, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

Neme12 Nov 7, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

Neme12 Nov 7, 2018 •

edited by jcouv

wachulski commented Nov 12, 2018 •

edited