rpc: Add support for JSON-RPC named arguments #8811

laanwj · 2016-09-25T19:29:45Z

The JSON-RPC specification allows either passing parameters as an Array, for by-position arguments, or as an Object, for by-name arguments. Currently Bitcoin Core only supports by-position arguments.

This pull request makes the (minimal) changes to support by-name arguments, but preserves full backwards compatibility. APIs using by-name arguments are easier to extend - as arguments can be left out - and easier to use - no need to guess which argument goes where.

This is especially nice in languages such as Python, which have native support for named arguments. Examples from the test:

h = node.help(command='getinfo')
h = node.getblockhash(index=0)
h = node.getblock(hash=h)

In this implementation named arguments are mapped to positions by a per-call structure, provided in the RPC command table. In the future calls could process the parameter object themselves, but this provides nice automatic interoperability with both worlds.
Missing arguments will be replaced by null ("holes"), except if at the end, then the argument is left out completely.
It is not possible to specify both named and positional arguments like in Python. JSON-RPC doesn't allow for this, and I think it would be only confusing anyhow.
An error (RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER) will be return if an unknown named argument is specified.

Currently no calls have support for "holes" between arguments, but this should be implemented later on a per-call basis. These should be replaced with default values.

TODO

~~bitcoin-cli should grow support for providing named arguments~~ DONE see rpc: Add support for JSON-RPC named arguments #8811 (comment)
~~Calls in mining, net, rawtransaction wallet still need argument names filled in. I'll do this if reaction to this is positive.~~

Later

Same for the debug console. Syntax to be determined there. Not necessarily in this pull, my focus here is the core implementation.

laanwj · 2016-09-26T15:35:28Z

This is useful because a lot of features add new arguments to an existing call. For example #8751.

Currently the user of the API has to explicitly specify defaults for the intermediate arguments. With named arguments this would no longer be necessary.

It could also help clean up the API for calls that already have a lot of optional arguments such as sendtoaddress, or at least make it easier to use them.

maflcko · 2016-10-02T11:06:48Z

qa/rpc-tests/test_framework/authproxy.py

        AuthServiceProxy.__id_count += 1

        log.debug("-%s-> %s %s"%(AuthServiceProxy.__id_count, self._service_name,
                                 json.dumps(args, default=EncodeDecimal, ensure_ascii=self.ensure_ascii)))
+        if args and argsn:
+            raise ValueError('Cannot handle both named and positional arguments')
        postdata = json.dumps({'version': '1.1',


In the OP you are linking to the "JSON-RPC 2.0 Specification", which states

jsonrpc
A String specifying the version of the JSON-RPC protocol. MUST be exactly "2.0".

Can you explain why you keep this at 1.1?

May make sense to change it to that (even irrespective of this pull) however I'm not sure that we support the entire 2.0 standard, so that may involve other changes too.

maflcko · 2016-10-02T11:16:48Z

The only alternative I see would be to only accept one object as first positional argument for all methods, but this will likely never happen, so Concept ACK.

jonasschnelli · 2016-10-10T10:32:44Z

Concept ACK. I think this is very useful.
ACK to extend it to bitcoin-cli, to the other rpc tables and to the RPC value conversions table.

After this, we should update the documents (and RPC help examples) to slowly move away from recommending fixed position arguments.

laanwj · 2016-10-10T14:02:58Z

Rebased to get rid of the univalue change

laanwj · 2016-10-25T14:58:54Z

Needed rebase, rebased

instagibbs

concept ACK, and aside from the error mentioned, looks like good minimal support

instagibbs · 2016-11-01T14:50:17Z

src/rpc/server.cpp

+    for (const std::string &argName: argNames) {
+        auto fr = argsIn.find(argName);
+        if (fr != argsIn.end()) {
+            for (int i = 0; i < hole; ++i) {


after this loop hole should be reset to 0, otherwise holes will be repeated for every subsequent entry?

Yes, good catch, thanks!

instagibbs · 2016-11-01T14:52:09Z

src/rpc/server.cpp

+    // Process expected parameters.
+    int hole = 0;
+    for (const std::string &argName: argNames) {
+        auto fr = argsIn.find(argName);


what does fr stand for?

find returnvalue? Just a guess.

instagibbs · 2016-11-01T14:55:37Z

qa/rpc-tests/rpcnamedargs.py

+        node.getblock(hash=h)
+
+        assert_equal(node.echo(), [])
+        assert_equal(node.echo(arg0=0,arg9=9), [0] + [None]*8 + [9])


may want to add test of [exist, hole, exist, exist] to catch gap repeat error

I added the test:
assert_equal(node.echo(arg0=0,arg3=3,arg9=9), [0] + [None]_2 + [3] + [None]_5 + [9])
Verified that with the code as is it fails, but with instagibbs fix of hole=0 it succeeds.

afk11 · 2016-11-08T13:37:40Z

Concept ACK, needs rebase

laanwj · 2016-11-15T09:31:16Z

Rebased, added @instagibbs' test and fix.

mrbandrews · 2016-11-15T14:03:21Z

ACK

sipa · 2016-11-15T18:12:37Z

Concept ACK!

Do you intend to include the echo command in the final merge?

laanwj · 2016-11-16T06:54:03Z

@sipa I've had use for it two times in testing - here and in #7783. Also I fathom it's somewhat useful for users when testing JSON RPC libraries. So my preference would be to keep it.

instagibbs · 2016-11-18T00:06:41Z

utACK 3c7647e

laanwj · 2016-11-21T13:52:03Z

As there is interest in this I'm continuing work on the issues that are still open in the OP.
I've pushed argument naming for mining, net, rawtransaction and wallet, which completes it for all calls. I'll also make it possible to use named arguments with bitcoin-cli.
I'll leave the GUI change for another time though.

laanwj · 2016-11-22T14:22:18Z

Added support to bitcoin-cli. This should complete the feature set for this pull. I'd appreciate testing and review.

Especially important to review are the parameter names in the RPC tables, as they will become part of the API:

More examples

$ src/bitcoin-cli -testnet -named getbalance account="*" minconf="1" include-watchonly=false
413.44052133

Note right now, getbalance doesn't allow leaving intermediate arguments out right now, so this won't work yet.

$ src/bitcoin-cli -testnet -named getbalance minconf="1" include-watchonly=false
error code: -1
error message:
JSON value is not a string as expected

It doesn't know how to handle the univalue null for the account parameter. It should interpret it as the default, "*". This should be addressed in later changes for specific methods.

theuni

Concept ACK, and code generally looks good. I added a few nits, most of which have actually already been addressed in subsequent commits.

At a high level, I'm worried about introducing the "txid" param name for a bunch of calls that will likely need to make the distinction between txid/wtxid soon. Wallet especially. Maybe some convention like "txhash" should be preferred instead?

theuni · 2016-11-25T21:12:04Z

src/rpc/misc.cpp

-    { "util",               "signmessagewithprivkey", &signmessagewithprivkey, true  },
+    { "control",            "getinfo",                &getinfo,                true,  {} }, /* uses wallet if enabled */
+    { "control",            "getmemoryinfo",          &getmemoryinfo,          true,  {} },
+    { "util",               "validateaddress",        &validateaddress,        true,  {"bitcoinaddress"} }, /* uses wallet if enabled */


This is referred to as "address" in the help

address/privkey/pubkey usage is made consistent in a later commit:
8b6fd17

theuni · 2016-11-25T21:12:16Z

src/rpc/misc.cpp

+    { "control",            "getmemoryinfo",          &getmemoryinfo,          true,  {} },
+    { "util",               "validateaddress",        &validateaddress,        true,  {"bitcoinaddress"} }, /* uses wallet if enabled */
+    { "util",               "createmultisig",         &createmultisig,         true,  {"nrequired","keys"} },
+    { "util",               "verifymessage",          &verifymessage,          true,  {"bitcoinaddress","signature","message"} },


theuni · 2016-11-25T21:18:13Z

src/rpc/net.cpp

+    { "network",            "getconnectioncount",     &getconnectioncount,     true,  {} },
+    { "network",            "ping",                   &ping,                   true,  {} },
+    { "network",            "getpeerinfo",            &getpeerinfo,            true,  {} },
+    { "network",            "addnode",                &addnode,                true,  {"node","command"} },


maybe these should be "address" rather than "node", so that in the future we can differentiate? (nodeid, subnet, etc)

'address' is already used for bitcoin addresses, so I'd prefer not overloading that for network addresses. Other suggestions are welcome, though

theuni · 2016-11-25T21:25:04Z

src/rpc/net.cpp

+    { "network",            "getaddednodeinfo",       &getaddednodeinfo,       true,  {"node"} },
+    { "network",            "getnettotals",           &getnettotals,           true,  {} },
+    { "network",            "getnetworkinfo",         &getnetworkinfo,         true,  {} },
+    { "network",            "setban",                 &setban,                 true,  {"ip", "command", "bantime", "absolute"} },


probably better to call this subnet

theuni · 2016-11-25T21:36:23Z

src/rpc/mining.cpp

+
+    { "generating",         "generate",               &generate,               true,  {"numblocks","maxtries"} },
+    { "generating",         "generatetoaddress",      &generatetoaddress,      true,  {"numblocks","address","maxtries"} },
+


unify nblocks/numblocks?

theuni · 2016-11-25T22:18:34Z

src/rpc/client.cpp

+            throw(std::runtime_error("No '=' in named argument, a value needs to be provided for every argument"));
+        }
+        std::string name = s.substr(ptr, pos-ptr);
+        std::string value = s.substr(pos+1);


should probably make sure that !name.empty() && !value.empty() for good measure.

In that case it should do the expected thing: send an empty name or value.
An empty value is perfectly acceptable if you want to send an empty string.
An empty name is a bit strange, agreed, but it gets caught server-side as an unknown argument.

theuni · 2016-11-25T22:58:16Z

src/bitcoin-cli.cpp

+        if (haveNamed && havePositional) {
+            throw runtime_error("cannot have both named and positional arguments, did you mean to pass arguments before the command?");
+        } else if(haveNamed) {
+            params = RPCConvertNamedValues(strMethod, args);


Mixing args here with GetBoolArg/GetArg is a little scary. If some command took a (for example) "-version=foo" argument, I believe it would be swallowed by line 81 instead?

ParseParameters stops at the first argument that doesn't start with -, which happens to be the command. This starts after the command. So unless I miss something they will never interfere.

Ah, that's the part I was missing, thanks. Maybe a comment to that effect to remind me next time I have to ask? :)

Added a comment :)

luke-jr · 2016-11-26T05:28:38Z

Why is there a "wtxid" ever needed as a param? "txhash" and "txid" are all I see existing at all (hash != txid).

luke-jr · 2016-11-26T05:32:08Z

I think a lot of the options params ought to be flattened?

laanwj · 2016-11-26T05:38:09Z

I think a lot of the options params ought to be flattened?

Possibly. Not in this pull, though. JSON can perfectly deal with nested structures. Also this would break backwards compatibility, unlike anything in this pull.

laanwj · 2017-01-05T10:34:07Z

Rebased for minor argument documentation conflict.

sipa · 2017-01-07T23:28:23Z

utACK 65bf5d27c578e7560128a28af08fef57135ec841.

I have not read through the test code in detail, nor verified whether the RPC help names match the named arguments in the server and client tables. I have also not checked the consistency of the chosen names (but I don't care strongly). I have played around briefly with the new echo and echojson commands and they seem to work as expected.

TheBlueMatt

Didn't bother to audit that help text matches the server and client tables, but glanced at a few and they look good. None of the comments really matter all that much.

utACK 65bf5d27c578e7560128a28af08fef57135ec841

TheBlueMatt · 2017-01-08T01:27:27Z

src/rpc/server.cpp

+    const std::vector<UniValue>& values = in.params.getValues();
+    std::unordered_map<std::string, const UniValue*> argsIn;
+    for (size_t i=0; i<keys.size(); ++i) {
+        argsIn[keys[i]] = &values[i];


Because univalue does not check for duplicate keys, things are a bit weird. I'm not sure if there's much that this PR could/should do about this, but as long as we're adding more user-provided-json-parsing stuff I thought I'd mention it.

Almost no JSON implementation checks for duplicate keys. The usual behavior is that the last value assigned to the key takes precedence. I think that will happen here?

Yes, I believe the last one will take precedence. I'm ok with not fixing this, but it seems super strange.

Well if it's any guide, python's JSON behaves exactly the same:

>>> json.loads('{"a":"b","a":"C"}') {'a': 'C'}

What I would not mind is checking at the client side for duplicate arguments, as a user friendly feature, but I'm not going to do it in this pull.

TheBlueMatt · 2017-01-08T17:36:09Z

src/rpc/blockchain.cpp

@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ UniValue waitforblockheight(const JSONRPCRequest& request)
            "of the current tip.\n"
            "\nReturns the current block on timeout or exit.\n"
            "\nArguments:\n"
-            "1. block height to wait for (int)\n"
+            "1. height  (required, int) Block height to wait for (int)\n"


Docs here still say "blockheight" for one-line help but height for multi-line.

OK, will make that consistent.

TheBlueMatt · 2017-01-08T18:17:26Z

src/rpc/client.cpp

+        std::string name = s.substr(0, pos);
+        std::string value = s.substr(pos+1);
+
+        // allow include-mempool=true as well as include_mempool=true


This was useful when the syntax was -arg=value. I guess it no longer really is now that plain name=value pairs are used.

Usage e.g.: $ src/bitcoin-cli -testnet -named echo arg0="dfdf" [ "dfdf" ] Argument conversion also works, for arguments thus flagged in the table in `src/rpc/client.cpp`. $ src/bitcoin-cli -testnet -named echojson arg0="[1,2,3]" [ [ 1, 2, 3 ] ] Unknown parameter (detected server-side): $ src/bitcoin-cli -testnet -named getinfo arg0="dfdf" error code: -8 error message: Unknown named parameter arg0

laanwj · 2017-01-10T11:06:02Z

Fixed @bluematt's documentation nit and removed the _/- interchangeability for option names, and squashed. Should be ready for merge now if travis passes.

4e7e2e1 Update RPC argument names (John Newbery) 481f289 rpc: Named argument support for bitcoin-cli (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 9adb4e1 rpc: Argument name consistency (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 8d713f7 rpc: Named arguments for rawtransaction calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 37a166f rpc: Named arguments for wallet calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 78b684f rpc: Named arguments for mining calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) b8ebc59 rpc: Named arguments for net calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 2ca9dcd test: Add test for RPC named arguments (Wladimir J. van der Laan) fba1a61 rpc: Named arguments for misc calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 286ec08 rpc: Add 'echo' call for testing (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 495eb44 rpc: Named arguments for blockchain calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 6f1c76a rpc: Support named arguments (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 5865d41 authproxy: Add support for RPC named arguments (Wladimir J. van der Laan)

jtimon · 2017-01-10T17:46:41Z

Concept ACK (I'm surprised I didn't do it before).

This commit makes a few changes to the 'blockheight' parameter: - `getblockhash` can now take a negative height to indicate block depth counting back from the chain tip. - `getblock` and `getblockheader` can now take a height instead of a blockhash to indicate which block is requested. Height can be negative to indicate depth from the chain tip. Only one out of hash and height should be specified. - `getblock` and `getblockheader` can now be called using positional arguments (following bitcoin#8811).

4e7e2e1 Update RPC argument names (John Newbery) 481f289 rpc: Named argument support for bitcoin-cli (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 9adb4e1 rpc: Argument name consistency (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 8d713f7 rpc: Named arguments for rawtransaction calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 37a166f rpc: Named arguments for wallet calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 78b684f rpc: Named arguments for mining calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) b8ebc59 rpc: Named arguments for net calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 2ca9dcd test: Add test for RPC named arguments (Wladimir J. van der Laan) fba1a61 rpc: Named arguments for misc calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 286ec08 rpc: Add 'echo' call for testing (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 495eb44 rpc: Named arguments for blockchain calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 6f1c76a rpc: Support named arguments (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 5865d41 authproxy: Add support for RPC named arguments (Wladimir J. van der Laan)

9ed1bdd [RPC] Remove obsolete and ignored 'detach' argument of stop command (random-zebra) 7d9af29 [Doc] Add RPC named arguments to release notes (random-zebra) 1582bdf [QA] Add rpc_named_arguments.py functional test (random-zebra) d87da93 rpc: Rename first named arg of createrawtransaction (random-zebra) 7ae8964 [Refactor] Sort RPC command tables alphabetically (random-zebra) da63bb8 rpc: Named argument support for pivx-cli (random-zebra) 22ee72a rpc: Named arguments for rawtransaction calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 3a93690 rpc: Named arguments for wallet calls (random-zebra) f137eca rpc: Named arguments for mining calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) d524cc1 RPC: Named arguments for masternode, budget, and evo calls (random-zebra) 81de632 rpc: Named arguments for net calls (Wladimir J. van der Laan) 8e5bed7 rpc: Named arguments for misc calls (random-zebra) 4b2b980 rpc: Add 'echo' call for testing (Wladimir J. van der Laan) f8617c2 rpc: Named arguments for blockchain calls (random-zebra) a00e323 rpc: Support named arguments (Wladimir J. van der Laan) a0da903 authproxy: Add support for RPC named arguments (Wladimir J. van der Laan) Pull request description: The [JSON-RPC specification](http://www.jsonrpc.org/specification) allows either passing parameters as an Array, for positional arguments, or as an Object, for named arguments. Currently PIVX Core only supports positional arguments. This pull request adds support for named arguments, but preserves full backwards compatibility. APIs using by-name arguments are easier to extend - as arguments can be left out - and easier to use - no need to guess which argument goes where. This is especially nice in languages such as Python, which have native support for named arguments. Examples from the test: ```python h = node.help(command='getinfo') h = node.getblockhash(height=0) h = node.getblock(hash=h) ``` Backported from: - bitcoin#8811 : Add support for JSON-RPC named arguments _[W. J. van der Laan]_ - bitcoin#10084 : Rename first named arg of createrawtransaction _[MarcoFalke]_ ACKs for top commit: furszy: cool feature, ACK 9ed1bdd Fuzzbawls: ACK 9ed1bdd Tree-SHA512: 03001e5d1525e30af2126ebbabda275256df3dda170dbaf5732547af50dff90d655db78312666017840959704f6e0f268f99d91542e3a5f15484f1417a7bc904

laanwj added the RPC/REST/ZMQ label Sep 25, 2016

laanwj force-pushed the 2016_09_rpc_named_arguments branch from 8f66e77 to a6b4276 Compare September 25, 2016 19:39

maflcko reviewed Oct 2, 2016

View reviewed changes

maflcko mentioned this pull request Oct 2, 2016

univalue: Pull subtree #8863

Merged

laanwj force-pushed the 2016_09_rpc_named_arguments branch from a6b4276 to b71acdb Compare October 10, 2016 14:02

laanwj mentioned this pull request Oct 18, 2016

[RPC] Transaction details in getblock #8704

Merged

laanwj force-pushed the 2016_09_rpc_named_arguments branch from b71acdb to e4aa9b3 Compare October 25, 2016 14:58

jonasschnelli mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2016

wallet: Change default confirm target from 2 to 6 #9036

Merged

instagibbs suggested changes Nov 1, 2016

View reviewed changes

morcos mentioned this pull request Nov 10, 2016

'estimatefee 1' is currently failing #9106

Closed

laanwj force-pushed the 2016_09_rpc_named_arguments branch from e4aa9b3 to 3c7647e Compare November 15, 2016 09:31

laanwj force-pushed the 2016_09_rpc_named_arguments branch from 3c7647e to 376bec8 Compare November 21, 2016 13:49

laanwj force-pushed the 2016_09_rpc_named_arguments branch from 376bec8 to 76973f4 Compare November 22, 2016 14:16

theuni reviewed Nov 25, 2016

View reviewed changes

laanwj force-pushed the 2016_09_rpc_named_arguments branch from c9d3a54 to 65bf5d2 Compare January 5, 2017 10:32

laanwj added this to the 0.14.0 milestone Jan 5, 2017

TheBlueMatt reviewed Jan 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

laanwj and others added 2 commits January 10, 2017 12:04

Update RPC argument names

4e7e2e1

laanwj force-pushed the 2016_09_rpc_named_arguments branch from 65bf5d2 to 4e7e2e1 Compare January 10, 2017 11:05

laanwj merged commit 4e7e2e1 into bitcoin:master Jan 10, 2017

sipa mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2017

TODO for release notes 0.14.0 #8455

Closed

18 tasks

jnewbery mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2017

listreceivedbyaddress Filter Address #9503

Closed

laanwj mentioned this pull request Mar 29, 2017

rpc: Rename first named arg of createrawtransaction #10084

Merged

jnewbery mentioned this pull request May 9, 2017

Multi-wallet mit-dci/lit#59

Merged

jonasschnelli mentioned this pull request Jun 12, 2017

Add subtractfeeamount parameter bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org#1626

Merged

jnewbery mentioned this pull request Jun 16, 2017

RPC: Add parameter to addmultisigaddress / createmultisig to sort public keys #8751

Closed

promag mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2017

rpc: Update named args documentation for importprivkey #11465

Merged

str4d mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2017

Add assert_raises_message to the python test framework. zcash/zcash#2778

Merged

dagurval mentioned this pull request Feb 13, 2018

rpc: Add support for JSON-RPC named arguments bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt#334

Merged

daira mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2020

Add support for JSON-RPC named arguments zcash/zcash#4660

Open

random-zebra mentioned this pull request May 13, 2021

[RPC] Support for JSON-RPC named arguments PIVX-Project/PIVX#2386

Merged

bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021


		{ "generating", "generate", &generate, true, {"numblocks","maxtries"} },
		{ "generating", "generatetoaddress", &generatetoaddress, true, {"numblocks","address","maxtries"} },

rpc: Add support for JSON-RPC named arguments #8811

rpc: Add support for JSON-RPC named arguments #8811

Conversation

laanwj commented Sep 25, 2016 • edited Loading

TODO

Later

laanwj commented Sep 26, 2016 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maflcko commented Oct 2, 2016

jonasschnelli commented Oct 10, 2016

laanwj commented Oct 10, 2016

laanwj commented Oct 25, 2016

instagibbs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

afk11 commented Nov 8, 2016

laanwj commented Nov 15, 2016

mrbandrews commented Nov 15, 2016

sipa commented Nov 15, 2016

laanwj commented Nov 16, 2016

instagibbs commented Nov 18, 2016

laanwj commented Nov 21, 2016 • edited Loading

laanwj commented Nov 22, 2016 • edited Loading

More examples

theuni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

luke-jr commented Nov 26, 2016

luke-jr commented Nov 26, 2016

laanwj commented Nov 26, 2016 • edited Loading

laanwj commented Jan 5, 2017

sipa commented Jan 7, 2017

TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

laanwj commented Jan 10, 2017 • edited Loading

jtimon commented Jan 10, 2017

laanwj commented Sep 25, 2016 •

edited

Loading

laanwj commented Sep 26, 2016 •

edited

Loading

laanwj commented Nov 21, 2016 •

edited

Loading

laanwj commented Nov 22, 2016 •

edited

Loading

laanwj commented Nov 26, 2016 •

edited

Loading

laanwj commented Jan 10, 2017 •

edited

Loading