Using declaration ioperation #39125

chsienki · 2019-10-08T00:17:47Z

IOperation and CFG support for using declarations

chsienki · 2019-10-08T03:54:20Z

@dotnet/roslyn-compiler for review please

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-08T17:55:36Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/OperationInterfaces.xml

@@ -2899,4 +2899,21 @@
      </Comments>
    </Property>
  </Node>
+  <Node Name="IUsingVariableDeclarationOperation" Base="IOperation">


IUsingVariableDeclarationOperation [](start = 14, length = 34)

It looks like syntactically a Using Declaration is just a Local Declaration with additional keywords. Should we simply reuse the existing node, IVariableDeclarationOperation, which already says that it is used to represent "(3) C# using declarations"?

#Closed

IVariableDeclarationGroupOperation is used as a child node of the regular using statement. So you have a parent IUsingOperation with a VariableDeclarationGroup and a body. That's the same for the other types mentioned in the comments.

This way we keep the same shape for using declarations: you have a parent using declaration, which contains a child declaration group of the variables declared.

I originally went the route of updating DeclarationGroup with an enum on it to specify if it was using/async using/none, but this proved simpler as it was never used in any of the other cases, and this way you can keep the tree shape the same and visit the using declaration essentially the same as the statement. #Closed

I am not following why would we need to make any changes to DeclarationGroup. Or why similarities with IUsingOperation are important. I think we should simply add IsUsing and IsAsynchronous properties to IVariableDeclarationOperation instead of adding new node.

In reply to: 332695447 [](ancestors = 332695447)

I agree with @AlekseyTs here. That's how i would have expected thsi would be represented. #Resolved

Oh I see what you're referring to, that was from the initial 'dummy' implementation we did. Yep, we could definitely do that if you think it's better than introducing a new node? #Resolved

I agree with reusing the IVariableDeclarationOperation for this, though I'm not sure I agree with the two bool flags. These aren't independent variables: if IsAsync were true, IsUsing must, by definition, be true. I would likely prefer an enum over two bools. This will also give us flexibility if we add new types of variable declarations in the future, as we can add new kinds rather than throwing a whole bunch of flag booleans on the type itself. #Closed

Yeah, enum is how I originally designed it interestingly enough, then split it out into its own operation, because it felt weird having most of the declarations have UsingType=None #Closed

CyrusNajmabadi · 2019-10-08T22:13:00Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Generated/Operations.Generated.cs

+    /// This interface is reserved for implementation by its associated APIs. We reserve the right to
+    /// change it in the future.
+    /// </remarks>
+    public interface IUsingVariableDeclarationOperation : IOperation


Dumb question. Why is this a new iop, as opposed to being a bit on IVariableDeclarationGroupOperation ? #Closed

Resolved #Resolved

CyrusNajmabadi · 2019-10-08T22:13:48Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/ControlFlowGraphBuilder.cs

@@ -1364,28 +1364,28 @@ private IOperation FinishVisitingStatement(IOperation originalOperation, IOperat
            return result ?? MakeInvalidOperation(originalOperation.Syntax, originalOperation.Type, ImmutableArray<IOperation>.Empty);
        }

-        private void VisitStatements(ArrayBuilder<IOperation> statements)
+        private void VisitStatements(IList<IOperation> statements)


why this change. wont' this cause interface dispatches now? #Resolved

Derp. Fixed. #Closed

333fred · 2019-10-09T18:14:14Z

As noted offline, we need tests for async using declarations. #Closed

333fred · 2019-10-09T20:58:16Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/OperationInterfaces.xml

@@ -2036,6 +2035,13 @@
        </summary>
      </Comments>
    </Property>
+    <Property Name="UsingKind" Type="UsingKind">


I don't think this is what I'd do either. UsingKind limits future extensibility in the same was that the two flag bools do. Rather, I'd suggest something like DeclarationKind, with options of Local, Using, and AsyncUsing. #Closed

For example, there's an open request for a fixed declaration statement, that would fit in nicely with this API. #Resolved

Any reason these aren't just bools? IsUsing IsAsync? (and, in the future IsFixed)? #Closed

DeclarationKind is problematic because it already exists as public in Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Editing
LocalDeclarationKind already exists in Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic.Symbols although thats Friend so we could conceivable promote it and re-use it for this purpose?

We could do the two bools solution, but is a bit odd as you can't have IsAsync be true without IsUsing.
#Closed

@333fred i only know DeclarationKind already exists because that's how I first defined it. Non clashing name suggestions welcome, and i'll happily update #Closed

@CyrusNajmabadi #39125 (comment).
I'll mull on the DeclarationKind naming. #Closed

Actually, I thought it collided a lot more than it did. I've changed it to DeclarationKind #Closed

I don't feel hugely strongly. I'm personally ok with booleans where one implies the other. But i'm not going to die on this hill :) #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-10T17:17:39Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/DeclarationKind.cs

+        /// <summary>
+        /// A local declaration.
+        /// </summary>
+        Local = 0,


Local [](start = 8, length = 5)

Are other kinds not local? Perhaps "Default" or "None"? #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-10T17:21:21Z

src/Test/Utilities/Portable/Compilation/OperationTreeVerifier.cs

@@ -475,6 +475,10 @@ public override void VisitVariableDeclaration(IVariableDeclarationOperation oper
        {
            var variableCount = operation.Declarators.Length;
            LogString($"{nameof(IVariableDeclarationOperation)} ({variableCount} declarators)");
+            if (operation.DeclarationKind != DeclarationKind.Local)


if (operation.DeclarationKind != DeclarationKind.Local) [](start = 12, length = 55)

Please make necessary adjustments to TestOperationVisitor #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-10T17:22:59Z

src/Tools/Source/CompilerGeneratorTools/CompilerTools.sln

@@ -1,17 +1,19 @@

 Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File, Format Version 12.00
-# Visual Studio 15


I am assuming changes to this file were not intentional. Please revert/exclude from the PR. #Closed

There were intentional. The CompilerTools.sln didn't have the new CompilersIOperationGenerator added to it. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-10T17:25:36Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/DeclarationKind.cs

+
+namespace Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Operations
+{
+    public enum DeclarationKind


DeclarationKind [](start = 16, length = 15)

VariableDeclarationKind? #Closed

I also like this suggestion, it follows the rest of our Kind enums.

In reply to: 333643366 [](ancestors = 333643366)

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-10T17:39:40Z

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

@@ -224,6 +224,7 @@ internal IOperation CreateInternal(BoundNode boundNode)
                case BoundKind.LocalDeclaration:
                    return CreateBoundLocalDeclarationOperation((BoundLocalDeclaration)boundNode);
                case BoundKind.MultipleLocalDeclarations:
+                case BoundKind.UsingLocalDeclarations:


case BoundKind.UsingLocalDeclarations: [](start = 16, length = 38)

It looks like changes made to bound trees to support Using Declarations violate the invariant that only leaf nodes can have kinds. I.e. base nodes shouldn't have kinds. This way we can be sure that type checks for nodes that have kinds are equivalent to kind checks. #Closed

So do you want me to change this as part of this PR, or should we just log a bug and fix it in the future? #Resolved

So do you want me to change this as part of this PR, or should we just log a bug and fix it in the future?

I think it is a simple fix - introduction of a common base node. Should fit into this PR.

In reply to: 333678166 [](ancestors = 333678166)

Done. #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-10T17:42:17Z

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

@@ -1755,16 +1754,19 @@ private IVariableDeclarationGroupOperation CreateBoundMultipleLocalDeclarationsO
            SyntaxNode declarationSyntax = declarationGroupSyntax.IsKind(SyntaxKind.LocalDeclarationStatement) ?
                    ((LocalDeclarationStatementSyntax)declarationGroupSyntax).Declaration :
                    declarationGroupSyntax;
+
+            bool isUsing = declarationGroupSyntax.IsKind(SyntaxKind.LocalDeclarationStatement) && ((LocalDeclarationStatementSyntax)declarationGroupSyntax).UsingKeyword != default;


declarationGroupSyntax.IsKind(SyntaxKind.LocalDeclarationStatement) && ((LocalDeclarationStatementSyntax)declarationGroupSyntax).UsingKeyword != default; [](start = 27, length = 153)

We shouldn't be relying on syntax in IOperation factory. All required information should be captured in bound nodes during binding and factory should rely only on information in bound nodes. #Closed

Agreed, but we were already relying on syntax here to distinguish between using/fixed and localdecl. Should we just create an issue to fix the underlying bound nodes (as well as splitting them out above) and link it here? #Resolved

Should we just create an issue to fix the underlying bound nodes (as well as splitting them out above) and link it here?

I don't think so. Picking best syntax to associate node with is one thing, reinterring semantic meaning (which should be clear from the bound node itself) from syntax is another.

In reply to: 333679279 [](ancestors = 333679279)

Fixed. #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-10T17:44:21Z

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

@@ -1755,16 +1754,19 @@ private IVariableDeclarationGroupOperation CreateBoundMultipleLocalDeclarationsO
            SyntaxNode declarationSyntax = declarationGroupSyntax.IsKind(SyntaxKind.LocalDeclarationStatement) ?
                    ((LocalDeclarationStatementSyntax)declarationGroupSyntax).Declaration :
                    declarationGroupSyntax;
+
+            bool isUsing = declarationGroupSyntax.IsKind(SyntaxKind.LocalDeclarationStatement) && ((LocalDeclarationStatementSyntax)declarationGroupSyntax).UsingKeyword != default;
+            bool isAsync = isUsing && ((LocalDeclarationStatementSyntax)declarationGroupSyntax).AwaitKeyword != default;


bool isAsync = isUsing && ((LocalDeclarationStatementSyntax)declarationGroupSyntax).AwaitKeyword != default; [](start = 12, length = 108)

Same comment. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-10T17:59:38Z

        if (boundNode is BoundUsingLocalDeclarations boundUsingLocalDeclarations)

Should this code be removed now? #Closed

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Operations/CSharpOperationFactory.cs:349 in 07733a2. [](commit_id = 07733a2, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-10T18:02:52Z

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

-            // We do the same if the declarationSyntax was a using declaration, as it's bound as if it were a using statement
-            bool isUsing = declarationGroupSyntax.IsKind(SyntaxKind.LocalDeclarationStatement) && ((LocalDeclarationStatementSyntax)declarationGroupSyntax).UsingKeyword != default;
-            bool isImplicit = declarationGroupSyntax == declarationSyntax || boundMultipleLocalDeclarations.WasCompilerGenerated || isUsing;
+            bool isImplicit = declarationGroupSyntax == declarationSyntax || boundMultipleLocalDeclarations.WasCompilerGenerated;
            return new VariableDeclarationGroupOperation(ImmutableArray.Create(multiVariableDeclaration), _semanticModel, declarationGroupSyntax, type, constantValue, isImplicit);


return new VariableDeclarationGroupOperation(ImmutableArray.Create(multiVariableDeclaration), _semanticModel, declarationGroupSyntax, type, constantValue, isImplicit); [](start = 12, length = 167)

I guess I was confused before about what node maps to the variable declaration statement. Since it looks like IVariableDeclarationGroupOperation maps to a statement, I think the new property should be added to that node instead. #Closed

Extracted to group instead #Resolved

333fred · 2019-10-10T23:22:39Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/ControlFlowGraphBuilder.cs

+            StartVisitingStatement(operation);
+
+            var declarationKind = operation.DeclarationKind;
+            Debug.Assert(declarationKind != DeclarationKind.Default);


Consider instead asserting that the kind is either Using or AsynchronousUsing #Resolved

333fred · 2019-10-10T23:23:17Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/ControlFlowGraphBuilder.cs

+                operation.Syntax,
+                operation.Type,
+                operation.ConstantValue,
+                isImplicit: true);


Nit: extra newline below. #Resolved

333fred · 2019-10-10T23:25:25Z

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

+        private IVariableDeclarationGroupOperation CreateBoundUsingLocalDeclarationOperation(BoundUsingLocalDeclarations boundUsingLocalDeclarations)
+        {
+            bool isAsync = boundUsingLocalDeclarations.AwaitOpt is object;
+            DeclarationKind declarationKid = (isAsync) ? DeclarationKind.AsynchronousUsing : DeclarationKind.Using;


(isAsync) [](start = 45, length = 9)

Nit: extraneous parens #Resolved

333fred · 2019-10-10T23:30:27Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/IOperation/IOperation/IOperationTests_IVariableDeclaration.cs

@@ -2427,25 +2427,25 @@ void M1()
    IVariableDeclarationOperation (1 declarators) (OperationKind.VariableDeclaration, Type: null, IsInvalid) (Syntax: 'int[y switc ...  new int[0]')
      Ignored Dimensions(1):
          ISwitchExpressionOperation (1 arms) (OperationKind.SwitchExpression, Type: System.Int32, IsInvalid) (Syntax: 'y switch { int z => 42 }')
-            Value:
+            Value: 


Nit: are the only changes in this file whitespace? Can they be reverted? #Resolved

333fred · 2019-10-10T23:32:57Z

Done review pass (commit 14). Overall looks good, just a couple of small things to address. #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-11T01:48:52Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/OperationInterfaces.xml

@@ -2002,7 +2009,6 @@
        Current Usage:
          (1) C# VariableDeclaration
          (2) C# fixed declarations
-          (3) C# using declarations


(3) C# using declarations [](start = 10, length = 25)

Consider renumbering remaining items below #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-11T02:25:53Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/ControlFlowGraphBuilder.cs

+            // a using statement introduces a 'logical' block after declaration, we synthesize one here in order to analyze it like a regular using 
+            BlockOperation logicalBlock = new BlockOperation(
+                operations: statements,
+                locals: default,


Do we ever create blocks with default locals? Perhaps using an empty array would be more robust. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-11T02:26:30Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/ControlFlowGraphBuilder.cs

+            HandleUsingOperationParts(
+                resources: operation,
+                body: logicalBlock,
+                locals: default,


default [](start = 24, length = 7)

Same comment about using an empty array instead. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-11T02:49:13Z

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

+        {
+            bool isAsync = boundUsingLocalDeclarations.AwaitOpt is object;
+            VariableDeclarationKind declarationKid = isAsync ? VariableDeclarationKind.AsynchronousUsing : VariableDeclarationKind.Using;
+            SyntaxNode declarationSyntax = ((LocalDeclarationStatementSyntax)boundUsingLocalDeclarations.Syntax).Declaration;


(LocalDeclarationStatementSyntax) [](start = 44, length = 33)

It would be more robust to not assume that the cast is going to succeed. For example, a compiler generated node doesn't have to be associated with a local declaration statement syntax. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-11T02:55:56Z

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

+            bool declarationIsImplicit = boundUsingLocalDeclarations.WasCompilerGenerated;
+
+            IVariableDeclarationOperation multiVariableDeclaration = new CSharpLazyVariableDeclarationOperation(this, boundUsingLocalDeclarations, _semanticModel, declarationSyntax, type: null, constantValue: default, declarationIsImplicit);
+            return new VariableDeclarationGroupOperation(ImmutableArray.Create(multiVariableDeclaration), declarationKid, _semanticModel, boundUsingLocalDeclarations.Syntax, type: null, constantValue: default, isImplicit: false);


false [](start = 222, length = 5)

It is not clear why we simply assume that the node is not implicit.
In general, it looks like we can share code with CreateBoundMultipleLocalDeclarationsOperation. That method can be changed to take BoundMultipleLocalDeclarationsBase and figure out declaration kind based on the actual kind of the node, plus accessing BoundUsingLocalDeclarations.AwaitOpt if necessary. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-11T03:15:29Z

Done with review pass (iteration 16) #Closed

- Combine visits in operation factory - Fix numbering - Adjust free ordering in CFGBuilder

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-15T17:37:37Z

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

@@ -2105,5 +2086,16 @@ private IInstanceReferenceOperation CreateCollectionValuePlaceholderOperation(Bo
            bool isImplicit = placeholder.WasCompilerGenerated;
            return new InstanceReferenceOperation(referenceKind, _semanticModel, syntax, type, constantValue, isImplicit);
        }
+
+        //private IVariableDeclarationGroupOperation CreateBoundUsingLocalDeclarationOperation(BoundUsingLocalDeclarations boundUsingLocalDeclarations)


//private IVariableDeclarationGroupOperation CreateBoundUsingLocalDeclarationOperation(BoundUsingLocalDeclarations boundUsingLocalDeclarations) [](start = 8, length = 143)

Please remove commented out code. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2019-10-15T17:38:20Z

Done with review pass (iteration 17) #Closed

- Asset operation type - Cleanup free logic

AlekseyTs

LGTM (iteration 19), assuming CI will pass.

cston · 2019-10-15T18:39:15Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/ControlFlowGraphBuilder.cs

-            {
-                VisitStatement(statement);
+                    // visit the using decl with the following statements
+                    VisitUsingVariableDeclarationOperation(declarationGroup, followingStatements.ToImmutableAndFree());


followingStatements.ToImmutableAndFree() [](start = 77, length = 40)

Consider using ImmutableArray.Create(statements, i + 1, statements.Length - i). #Closed

cston · 2019-10-15T18:51:44Z

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

        {
-            // The syntax for the boundMultipleLocalDeclarations can either be a LocalDeclarationStatement or a VariableDeclaration, depending on the context
+            // The syntax for the boundMultipleLocalDeclarationsBase can either be a LocalDeclarationStatement or a VariableDeclaration, depending on the context


Base [](start = 64, length = 4)

The parameter name does not include "Base".

cston · 2019-10-15T18:53:54Z

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

            bool declarationIsImplicit = boundMultipleLocalDeclarations.WasCompilerGenerated;
            IVariableDeclarationOperation multiVariableDeclaration = new CSharpLazyVariableDeclarationOperation(this, boundMultipleLocalDeclarations, _semanticModel, declarationSyntax, null, default, declarationIsImplicit);

+            // If this is a using declaration, work out it's declaration kind


it's [](start = 56, length = 4)

Should this be "its", or perhaps "the"?

cston · 2019-10-15T21:58:58Z

src/Compilers/Core/Portable/Operations/ControlFlowGraphBuilder.cs

+                    && declarationGroup.DeclarationKind != VariableDeclarationKind.Default)
+                {
+                    // visit the using decl with the following statements
+                    var followingStatements = ImmutableArray.Create(statements, Math.Min(i + 1, statements.Length - 1), statements.Length - i - 1);


Math.Min(i + 1, statements.Length - 1) [](start = 80, length = 38)

Won't this copy the last statement in the block, even if that is the using statement? #Resolved

ImmutableArray.Create(statements, i + 1, statements.Length - i) should work, even if i + 1 == statements.Length.

In reply to: 335196847 [](ancestors = 335196847)

But what about when there is only one statement in the list, which is a using decl? i = 0 => i + 1 = 1, statements.Length - i == 1 which is incorrect.

In reply to: 335199463 [](ancestors = 335199463,335196847)

No, because the length becomes zero in that case and you end up with an empty array. I've added UsingDeclaration_Flow_11 to test this scenario.

In reply to: 335196847 [](ancestors = 335196847)

Discussed offline + fixed

In reply to: 335205220 [](ancestors = 335205220,335196847)

chsienki added 5 commits October 3, 2019 15:16

Update sln/csproj for generated ioperations

cfc6ae7

Add IOperation for UsingDeclarations

f969198

Implement CFG for IUsingOperation

9a37069

Updfate and add tests

6e3dbac

Minor fixes

41d62fd

chsienki force-pushed the using_declaration_ioperation branch from 899598d to 41d62fd Compare October 8, 2019 00:27

chsienki marked this pull request as ready for review October 8, 2019 03:54

chsienki requested a review from a team as a code owner October 8, 2019 03:54

AlekseyTs reviewed Oct 8, 2019

View reviewed changes

jinujoseph added the Area-Compilers label Oct 8, 2019

CyrusNajmabadi reviewed Oct 8, 2019

View reviewed changes

Refactor UsingOperationDeclaration as an enum of declaration instead

88b7dd8

333fred reviewed Oct 9, 2019

View reviewed changes

Add extra tests for async usings

6f5ca1a

chsienki force-pushed the using_declaration_ioperation branch from fc35010 to e89686a Compare October 10, 2019 00:14

Rename UsingKind to DeclarationKind

07733a2

chsienki force-pushed the using_declaration_ioperation branch from e89686a to 07733a2 Compare October 10, 2019 00:17

AlekseyTs reviewed Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

Remove old code

a49173e

Fix using declarations in switch statements

31e11c2

333fred reviewed Oct 10, 2019

View reviewed changes

chsienki added 2 commits October 10, 2019 17:28

PR Feedback

2f6a076

Rename DeclarationKind to VariableDeclarationKind

75733a2

AlekseyTs reviewed Oct 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

PR Feedback:

2d3bd2e

- Combine visits in operation factory - Fix numbering - Adjust free ordering in CFGBuilder

AlekseyTs reviewed Oct 15, 2019

View reviewed changes

chsienki added 2 commits October 15, 2019 10:41

PR Feedback:

47b6cfd

- Asset operation type - Cleanup free logic

Remove commented code

9ace87c

AlekseyTs approved these changes Oct 15, 2019

View reviewed changes

cston reviewed Oct 15, 2019

View reviewed changes

PR Feedback

d8d856b

cston reviewed Oct 15, 2019

View reviewed changes

chsienki added 2 commits October 15, 2019 15:12

Add extra flow test

3581d3b

Simplify array creation

8e9aa1d

cston approved these changes Oct 15, 2019

View reviewed changes

chsienki merged commit e4c4732 into dotnet:master Oct 16, 2019

chsienki mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2019

Support BoundUsingLocalDeclarations in IOperation and CFG #32100

Closed

		@@ -1,17 +1,19 @@

		Microsoft Visual Studio Solution File, Format Version 12.00
		# Visual Studio 15

Using declaration ioperation #39125

Using declaration ioperation #39125

Conversation

chsienki commented Oct 8, 2019 • edited

chsienki commented Oct 8, 2019

AlekseyTs Oct 8, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 8, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 8, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 8, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

333fred Oct 9, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 9, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 8, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 8, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

333fred commented Oct 9, 2019 • edited

333fred Oct 9, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

333fred Oct 9, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 9, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 9, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 9, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

333fred Oct 9, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 10, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 • edited by 333fred

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs commented Oct 10, 2019 • edited

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 • edited by 333fred

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

333fred Oct 10, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

333fred Oct 10, 2019 • edited by chsienki

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

333fred Oct 10, 2019 • edited by chsienki

chsienki commented Oct 8, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 8, 2019 •

edited

chsienki Oct 8, 2019 •

edited

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 8, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

chsienki Oct 8, 2019 •

edited

333fred Oct 9, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

chsienki Oct 9, 2019 •

edited

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 8, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 8, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

333fred commented Oct 9, 2019 •

edited

333fred Oct 9, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

333fred Oct 9, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 9, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

chsienki Oct 9, 2019 •

edited

chsienki Oct 9, 2019 •

edited

333fred Oct 9, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

CyrusNajmabadi Oct 10, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 •

edited by 333fred

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs commented Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 10, 2019 •

edited

chsienki Oct 10, 2019 •

edited by 333fred

333fred Oct 10, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

333fred Oct 10, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

333fred Oct 10, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

333fred Oct 10, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

333fred commented Oct 10, 2019 •

edited by chsienki

AlekseyTs Oct 11, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 11, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 11, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 11, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 11, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs commented Oct 11, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs Oct 15, 2019 •

edited

AlekseyTs commented Oct 15, 2019 •

edited

cston Oct 15, 2019 •

edited

cston Oct 15, 2019 •

edited

cston Oct 15, 2019 •

edited by chsienki