Add ReadonlyArray overload to Array.isArray #28916

ulrichb · 2018-12-08T01:54:52Z

This is an alternative to #22942 which doesn't introduce a breaking change for any inputs by using an overload instead of changing the Array.isArray() signature.

Therefore it still works for any/unknown arguments to cast them to Array<any> (instead of ReadonlyArray<any> like in #22942). See the test cases in isArray.ts.

In the following case (the argument is some non-array + non-any/unknown) this PR still introduces a breaking change.

const notReallyAnArray = {};

if (Array.isArray(notReallyAnArray)) {
    notReallyAnArray.length; // OK
    const str: string = notReallyAnArray[0]; // OK
    notReallyAnArray.sort(); // Now an Error
}

IMO it's okay to break this situation (where the static type isn't an array and should be changed anyways) and on the other hand we win type safe ReadonlyArray<T> narrowing (#17002, which by the way is a breaking change anyways).

msftclas · 2018-12-08T01:55:03Z

All CLA requirements met.

RyanCavanaugh · 2019-01-25T04:11:18Z

@sandersn a lot to unpack here; we should discuss before merging

nstepien · 2019-05-25T16:59:37Z

@ulrichb @RyanCavanaugh
Would love to see this fixed, currently Array.isArray breaks types in code like this:

function test(arg: string | ReadonlyArray<string>): string {
  if (Array.isArray(arg)) {
    return arg.join('\n');
  }
  // Type 'string | readonly string[]' is not assignable to type 'string'.
  //  Type 'readonly string[]' is not assignable to type 'string'.ts(2322)
  return arg;
}

It's fine with arg: string | Array<string> of course, but that's not ideal.

RyanCavanaugh · 2019-06-28T18:56:24Z

interface MyArray<T> extends Array<T> { manifest: any; }
interface MyReadOnlyArray<T> extends ReadonlyArray<T> { manifest: any; }

namespace Testbench {
    declare const Array: {
        isArray<T>(arg: T): arg is T extends ReadonlyArray<any> ? T : Array<any> extends T ? (T & any[]) : never;
    };

    function fn1(arg: string | string[]) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(""); // Should OK
    }

    function fn2(arg: unknown) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(""); // Should OK
    }

    function fn3(arg: object) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(""); // Should OK
    }

    function fn4(arg: {}) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(""); // Should OK
    }

    function fn5(arg: string | ReadonlyArray<string>) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(10); // Should FAIL
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(""); // Should FAIL
    }

    function fn6(arg: string | string[]) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(10); // Should FAIL
    }

    function fn7(arg: boolean | number[] | string[]) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(null as any as string & number); // Should OK
    }

    function fn8(arg: string | number[] | readonly string[]) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(10); // Should FAIL
    }

    function fn9(arg: string | number[] | readonly string[]) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(10); // Should FAIL
    }

    function fn10(arg: string | MyArray<string>) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(10); // Should FAIL
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(""); // Should OK
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.manifest; // Should OK
    }

    function fn11(arg: string | MyReadOnlyArray<string>) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(""); // Should FAIL
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(10); // Should FAIL
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(""); // Should OK
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.manifest; // Should OK
    }

    function fn12<T>(arg: T | T[]) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(null as any as T); // Should OK
    }

    function fn13<T>(arg: T | ReadonlyArray<T>) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(null as any as T); // Should fail
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(null as any as T); // Should fail
    }

    function fn14<T>(arg: T | [T]) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(null as any as T); // Should OK
    }

    function fn15<T>(arg: T | readonly [T]) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(null as any as T); // Should fail
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(null as any as T); // Should OK
    }

    function fn16<T extends string | string[]>(arg: T) {
        if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push("10"); // Should OK
    }

    function fn17() {
        const s: Array<string | string[]> = [];
        const arrs = s.filter(Array.isArray);
        arrs.push(["one"]);
    }
}

RyanCavanaugh · 2019-07-16T18:02:53Z

@ulrichb we hammered out the definition above (see the top of the file); do you want to try updating the PR to use it and clean up the merge conflicts?

…yOverload # Conflicts: # tests/baselines/reference/destructuringParameterDeclaration4.errors.txt # tests/baselines/reference/promisePermutations.errors.txt # tests/baselines/reference/promisePermutations2.errors.txt # tests/baselines/reference/promisePermutations3.errors.txt # tests/baselines/reference/promiseTypeInference.errors.txt

…load for 'isArray' This has the advantage that it upcasts non-array inputs to Array<any> instead of ReadonlyArray<any> (=> no breaking change in this case).

ulrichb · 2019-07-17T02:29:48Z

Hi @RyanCavanaugh,

updated the PR and merged master.

I like the approach with the conditional type (avoids the breaking change mentioned in the description).

One question: Why not isArray<T>(arg: T): arg is T extends ReadonlyArray<any> ? T : T & any[]; (no Array<any> extends T case and never)? I ran all tests locally and it behaves equally.

I made small changes in the test cases:

fn5: Added positive cases for ReadonlyArray members
fn13: Fixed the wrong "should fail" comment
fn16/17: Added additional negative test case
Changed all the as null as ... casts to parameters.

ulrichb · 2019-07-22T23:00:08Z

/ping @RyanCavanaugh

kalbert312 · 2019-12-29T01:19:15Z

I was looking for a better type this as well. I'm using

isArray<T>(arg: T): T is Extract<NonNullable<T>, Array | ReadonlyArray>;

I had to wrap T in NonNullable otherwise I was running into some issue with undefined.
Seems to work but only tested in one case.
Maybe wouldn't work since there might be some overlap issue in Array/ReadonlyArray? Didn't go that far with it yet though.

EDIT: This doesn't seem to work right in more complex cases. I need to use the conditional extends approach.

sandersn · 2020-01-09T18:25:08Z

Sorry, I lost track of this. I don't want to merge it during the 3.8 beta, but I added it to my list of work when the 3.9 release starts.

laughinghan · 2020-01-10T21:46:27Z

Edit: tests fn12() and fn14() fail, but I think those are wrong

@RyanCavanaugh @ulrichb So there's an important and obvious test case that both of your versions fail:

  function fn0(arg: any) {
    if (Array.isArray(arg)) {
      arg.push(""); // Should OK
      arg.anything(); // Should FAIL, but both your versions pass,
                      // because `arg` is being typed as `any`
    } else {
      arg.anything(); // Should OK, but both your versions fail,
                      // because `arg` is being narrowed to `never`
      // => This is a pretty big problem!!! <=
    }
  }

Playground Link

Note that this is different from the fn2() test case where arg is unknown. Consider @ulrichb's proposed type T extends readonly any[] ? T : T & any[]: that works for T = unknown because it is the proper, well-behaved top type, so it isn't assignable to readonly any[], and so the type of arg gets correctly narrowed to unknown & any[] = any[].

However, T = any is magic and acts like both the top and bottom types, so it is assignable to readonly any[], and so the type of arg isn't narrowed at all and remains T = any, instead of being narrowed to any[] like we want.

Of course, I didn't figure all that out until after much, much, much trial-and-error down endless dead-ends, but with all that in mind, the basic idea behind my fix is to special-case any by checking if unknown extends T:

unknown extends T ? Extract<any[], T> : (T extends readonly any[] ? T : T & any[])
//                                       ^^^^^^^same as @ulrichb's version^^^^^^^

Notes:

Extract<any[], T> must be used and not T & any[] because of my fn0() test case: if T = any, then T & any[] = any & any[] = any & AnyTypeExpression = any, instead of any[] like we want.
- (this is again because any isn't a well-behaved top type and is acting like a bottom type here)
Extract<any[], T> must be used and not any[] extends T ? any[] : never, but I don't understand why, is this a TypeScript bug?
In fn2(), Array.isArray() narrows unknown to any[], but arguably it should be narrowed to unknown[] instead?

laughinghan

Use GitHub's inline suggest-changes feature to apply the fix I proposed in this comment: #28916 (comment)

laughinghan · 2020-01-10T21:39:56Z

tests/cases/compiler/isArray.ts

+
+function fn13<T>(arg: T | ReadonlyArray<T>, t: T) {
+    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should fail
+    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // OK


For consistency; also add another test:

Suggested change

if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // OK

if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK

if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL

laughinghan · 2020-01-10T21:40:18Z

tests/cases/compiler/isArray.ts

+}
+
+function fn13<T>(arg: T | ReadonlyArray<T>, t: T) {
+    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should fail


For consistency, let's make this (and all the other places):

Suggested change

if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should fail

if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should FAIL

laughinghan · 2020-01-10T21:42:14Z

tests/cases/compiler/isArray.ts


-if (Array.isArray(maybeArray)) {
-    maybeArray.length; // OK
+function fn1(arg: string | string[]) {


Suggested change

function fn1(arg: string | string[]) {

function fn0(arg: any) {

if (Array.isArray(arg)) {

arg.push(""); // Should OK

arg.anything(); // Should FAIL

} else {

arg.anything(); // Should OK

}

}

function fn1(arg: string | string[]) {

laughinghan · 2020-01-10T21:45:10Z

src/lib/es5.d.ts

@@ -1341,7 +1341,7 @@ interface ArrayConstructor {
    (arrayLength?: number): any[];
    <T>(arrayLength: number): T[];
    <T>(...items: T[]): T[];
-    isArray(arg: any): arg is Array<any>;
+    isArray<T>(arg: T): arg is T extends ReadonlyArray<any> ? T : Array<any> extends T ? (T & any[]) : never;


Suggested change

isArray<T>(arg: T): arg is T extends ReadonlyArray<any> ? T : Array<any> extends T ? (T & any[]) : never;

isArray<T>(arg: T): arg is Extract<any[], T> | Extract<[any], T> | (unknown extends T ? never : Extract<T, readonly any[]>) {

// the first two clauses, `Extract<any[], T>` and `Extract<[any], T>`,

// ensure that the type predicate will extract `B[]` out of `A | B[]`

// and `[B]` out of `A | [B]`, just like a the naive predicate `arg is any[]`

// would. The final clause is a special case if T is known to include

// a readonly array, to extract `readonly B[]` out of `A | readonly B[]`,

// and `readonly [B]` out of `A | readonly [B]`, but as a special exception

// it needs to ignore the case of T = any, because `any` is an ill-behaved

// type. See https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/pull/28916#issuecomment-573217751

laughinghan · 2020-01-16T00:50:55Z

OK so, my fix fails tests fn12() and fn14(), but I'd argue that those tests are wrong. They test that T | T[] is narrowed to T[] and T | [T] is narrowed to [T], respectively, but that is actually incorrect if T = readonly string[].

Note, however, that this is a potentially breaking change from the old isArray(arg: any): arg is any[] behavior, which did narrow T | T[] to T[] and T | [T] to [T]. Is that an intentionally unsoundness in TypeScript's type narrowing algorithm?

laughinghan · 2020-01-18T20:53:21Z

tests/cases/compiler/isArray.ts

+    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(10); // Should FAIL
+}
+
+function fn7(arg: boolean | number[] | string[], stringAndNumber: string & number) {


string & number = never, I don't think this tests what we want, how about:

Suggested change

function fn7(arg: boolean | number[] | string[], stringAndNumber: string & number) {

function fn7(arg: boolean | Number[] | String[], stringAndNumber: String & Number) {

sandersn · 2020-03-13T22:34:25Z

@laughinghan the problem you point about narrowing any is pretty severe. But I also don't think we want to break the narrowing testing in fn12 and fn14, even if they are unsound.

sandersn

The problem that @laughinghan brings up with narrowing any means we can't merge this as-is. However, their solution breaks backward compatibility. I'm not sure how to fix this PR at the moment.

@DanielRosenwasser we might consider bringing this back up at a design meeting or we could just drop it unless a community member is able to come up with a solution.

laughinghan · 2020-03-14T00:58:33Z

@sandersn I see. I will take a stab at passing fn12 and fn14 then

(Unless it would make more sense to wait until you've brought it up at a design meeting?)

sandersn · 2020-03-17T22:03:28Z

@laughinghan if you can come up with a solution that passes all the tests, that would help our discussion a lot. Otherwise that's what we'll spend our time doing first.

sandersn · 2020-04-01T22:33:33Z

This PR hasn't seen any activity for quite a while, so I'm going to close it to keep the number of open PRs manageable. Feel free to open a fresh PR or continue the discussion here.

laughinghan · 2020-05-05T20:07:42Z

@sandersn Oh—did it come up at the design meeting at all whether we want the fn12 and fn14 behavior, even though they're unsound?

laughinghan · 2020-05-06T00:38:44Z

@sandersn Actually, I fixed it! See for yourself.

It's actually a little simpler and easier to explain, so I also included a comment with an overview of how it works.

I'll modify my suggested-changes comments. (Can you accept them, or can only @ulrichb accept them?)

laughinghan · 2020-05-06T00:55:27Z

tests/cases/compiler/isArray.ts

+    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(10); // Should FAIL
+}
+
+function fn9(arg: string | number[] | readonly string[]) {


fn9() is identical to fn8(), how about instead:

Suggested change

function fn9(arg: string | number[] | readonly string[]) {

function fn9(arg: string | readonly number[] | string[]) {

laughinghan · 2020-05-06T01:12:37Z

tests/cases/compiler/isArray.ts

+function fn12<T>(arg: T | T[], t: T) {
+    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK
+}


Suggested change

function fn12<T>(arg: T | T[], t: T) {

if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK

}

function fn12a<T>(arg: T | T[], t: T) {

if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK

if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK

if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL

}

function fn12b<T>(arg: T | T[] | (T & Number)[], t: T & Number) {

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL

}

function fn12c<T, U>(arg: T | T[] | U[], t: T, u: U, tu: T & U) {

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.push(tu); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(tu); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL

}

function fn12d<T>(arg: T | readonly T[], t: T) {

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should FAIL

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL

}

laughinghan · 2020-05-06T01:17:51Z

tests/cases/compiler/isArray.ts

+function fn14<T>(arg: T | [T], t: T) {
+    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK
+}


Suggested change

function fn14<T>(arg: T | [T], t: T) {

if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK

}

function fn14a<T>(arg: T | [T], t: T) {

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL

}

function fn14b<T>(arg: T | [T] | [T & Number], t: T & Number) {

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL

}

function fn14c<T, U>(arg: T | [T] | [U], t: T, u: U, tu: T & U) {

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.push(tu); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(tu); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL

}

function fn14d<T>(arg: T | readonly [T], t: T) {

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should FAIL

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK

if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL

}

ulrichb added 2 commits December 8, 2018 02:37

Add ReadonlyArray overload for Array.isArray()

ef70c04

Accept remaining baselines

f02bdcb

RyanCavanaugh assigned sandersn Jan 25, 2019

DanielRosenwasser mentioned this pull request Jul 11, 2019

Design Meeting Notes, 6/28/2019 #32357

Closed

ulrichb added 5 commits July 17, 2019 02:28

Switch to alternative which uses conditional types instead of an over…

57fa898

…load for 'isArray' This has the advantage that it upcasts non-array inputs to Array<any> instead of ReadonlyArray<any> (=> no breaking change in this case).

Use parameters instead of casting of test types

93e902d

Add additional negative tests

5e54de0

Fix leftover test type cast

88cd932

RyanCavanaugh mentioned this pull request Jul 22, 2019

Array.isArray refinement loses the array's type #32497

Closed

laughinghan suggested changes Jan 10, 2020

View reviewed changes

laughinghan reviewed Jan 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

sandersn added the For Backlog Bug PRs that fix a backlog bug label Feb 1, 2020

sandersn requested changes Mar 13, 2020

View reviewed changes

sandersn closed this Apr 1, 2020

laughinghan reviewed May 6, 2020

View reviewed changes

	if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // OK
	if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK
	if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL

	if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should fail
	if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should FAIL

-    isArray<T>(arg: T): arg is T extends ReadonlyArray<any> ? T : Array<any> extends T ? (T & any[]) : never;
+    isArray<T>(arg: T): arg is Extract<any[], T> | Extract<[any], T> | (unknown extends T ? never : Extract<T, readonly any[]>) {
+        // the first two clauses, `Extract<any[], T>` and `Extract<[any], T>`,
+        // ensure that the type predicate will extract `B[]` out of `A | B[]`
+        // and `[B]` out of `A | [B]`, just like a the naive predicate `arg is any[]`
+        // would. The final clause is a special case if T is known to include
+        // a readonly array, to extract `readonly B[]` out of `A | readonly B[]`,
+        // and `readonly [B]` out of `A | readonly [B]`, but as a special exception
+        // it needs to ignore the case of T = any, because `any` is an ill-behaved
+        // type. See https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/pull/28916#issuecomment-573217751

	function fn7(arg: boolean \| number[] \| string[], stringAndNumber: string & number) {
	function fn7(arg: boolean \| Number[] \| String[], stringAndNumber: String & Number) {

	function fn9(arg: string \| number[] \| readonly string[]) {
	function fn9(arg: string \| readonly number[] \| string[]) {

-function fn12<T>(arg: T | T[], t: T) {
-    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK
-}
+function fn12a<T>(arg: T | T[], t: T) {
+    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK
+    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK
+    if (Array.isArray(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL
+}
+function fn12b<T>(arg: T | T[] | (T & Number)[], t: T & Number) {
+    if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should OK
+    if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK
+    if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL
+}
+function fn12c<T, U>(arg: T | T[] | U[], t: T, u: U, tu: T & U) {
+    if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.push(tu); // Should OK
+    if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(tu); // Should OK
+    if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL
+}
+function fn12d<T>(arg: T | readonly T[], t: T) {
+    if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.push(t); // Should FAIL
+    if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(t); // Should OK
+    if (isArrayTest(arg)) arg.indexOf(0); // Should FAIL
+}

Add ReadonlyArray overload to Array.isArray #28916

Add ReadonlyArray overload to Array.isArray #28916

Uh oh!

Conversation

ulrichb commented Dec 8, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

msftclas commented Dec 8, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RyanCavanaugh commented Jan 25, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nstepien commented May 25, 2019

Uh oh!

RyanCavanaugh commented Jun 28, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RyanCavanaugh commented Jul 16, 2019

Uh oh!

ulrichb commented Jul 17, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ulrichb commented Jul 22, 2019

Uh oh!

kalbert312 commented Dec 29, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sandersn commented Jan 9, 2020

Uh oh!

laughinghan commented Jan 10, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

laughinghan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

laughinghan Jan 10, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

laughinghan Jan 10, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

laughinghan Jan 10, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

laughinghan Jan 10, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

laughinghan commented Jan 16, 2020

Uh oh!

laughinghan Jan 18, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sandersn commented Mar 13, 2020

Uh oh!

sandersn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

laughinghan commented Mar 14, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sandersn commented Mar 17, 2020

Uh oh!

sandersn commented Apr 1, 2020

Uh oh!

laughinghan commented May 5, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

laughinghan commented May 6, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

laughinghan May 6, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

laughinghan May 6, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ulrichb commented Dec 8, 2018 •

edited

Loading

msftclas commented Dec 8, 2018 •

edited

Loading

RyanCavanaugh commented Jan 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading

RyanCavanaugh commented Jun 28, 2019 •

edited

Loading

ulrichb commented Jul 17, 2019 •

edited

Loading

kalbert312 commented Dec 29, 2019 •

edited

Loading

laughinghan commented Jan 10, 2020 •

edited

Loading

laughinghan Jan 10, 2020 •

edited

Loading

laughinghan Jan 10, 2020 •

edited

Loading

laughinghan Jan 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading

laughinghan commented Mar 14, 2020 •

edited

Loading

laughinghan commented May 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

laughinghan commented May 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading

laughinghan May 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading