Allow record's ToString method to be sealed #52029

thomaslevesque · 2021-03-21T00:58:53Z

And don't generate ToString if base implementation is sealed

Fixes dotnet/csharplang#4174

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

jcouv · 2021-03-21T02:05:30Z

Please add an entry to roslyn/docs/Language Feature Status.md under "C# Next" to document the existence and progress of the feature:
Feature = "sealed record ToString" + link to proposal
Branch = main (I think we won't need a feature branch for this, since single PR)
State = in progress + link to test plan (#52031)
Dev = you
Reviewer = jcouv
LDM champ = 333fred

Thanks #Closed

jcouv · 2021-03-21T02:08:41Z

Thanks for taking this feature. Ping when ready for another look or if you have any questions. #Resolved

thomaslevesque · 2021-03-23T20:49:26Z

Some tests are failing, but they don't seem related to my changes... flaky tests? Or did I break something?

RikkiGibson · 2021-03-23T20:58:20Z

Failures look flaky. Let's rerun the failing test jobs.

jcouv · 2021-03-24T00:28:33Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

                );
        }

+        [Fact]
+        public void ToString_DerivedRecord_BaseHasSealedToString_PreviewSealedRecordToString()


nit: could be merged into preview test, since same source string (create a compilation and check diagnostics, then repeat with different options). Same applies to tests below.
Please verify execution (using CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: "...")) as well to show that we didn't generate a new ToString.

Please also add a test where the sealed ToString comes from the base's base (to cover the while loop in getBaseToStringMethod).
Also with some other ToString methods in base type (parameterlist not empty, return type not string) to cover the matching logic in getBaseToStringMethod. #Closed

could be merged into preview test

Do you mean changing the test to a Theory instead of Fact? #Closed

Also with some other ToString methods in base type (parameterlist not empty, return type not string)

I'm unable to introduce a ToString() method with a different return type. I get this error:

error CS8869: 'C2.ToString()' does not override expected method from 'object'.

So I'll just add a method with non-empty parameter list.

(Not sure what this CS8869 error is, btw; I don't get this error if I do the same thing in a class instead of a record. What's the rationale behind this?) #Closed

Do you mean changing the test to a Theory instead of Fact?

I had a typo. Meant into "previous" test:

string src = "..."; var comp = CreateCompilation(..., Regular9); comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(...); comp = CreateCompilation(..., RegularPreview); comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(); CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: "..."); // can verify execution when no error in LangVer=preview ``` #Closed

I'm unable to introduce a ToString() method with a different return type.

It's possible, but requires jumping through some hoops by defining your own System.Object type. See RecordTests.ObjectEquals_05 for help doing that. The key is to use CreateEmptyCompilation to avoid pulling libraries that already have this type. #Closed

I had a typo. Meant into "previous" test

Yes, I gathered as much.
Is it OK that I used a theory instead of creating compilations with different options in the same test? #Closed

It's possible, but requires jumping through some hoops by defining your own System.Object type. See RecordTests.ObjectEquals_05 for help doing that. The key is to use CreateEmptyCompilation to avoid pulling libraries that already have this type.

Thanks, I'll look into it. Not today, though...

Added a test for this scenario (ToString_DerivedRecord_BaseBaseHasSealedToString_And_BaseHasToStringWithDifferentReturnType). I no longer needed to jump through hoops, thanks to the changes related to CS8869

jcouv · 2021-03-24T00:31:54Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+                Diagnostic(ErrorCode.ERR_CantOverrideSealed, "B").WithArguments("B.GetHashCode()", "A.GetHashCode()").WithLocation(7, 8)
+                );
+
+            var actualMembers = comp.GetMember<NamedTypeSymbol>("B").GetMembers().ToTestDisplayStrings();


It'll be good to factor the C# 9 and preview tests into one so that we can share the validation logic (showing that the expectations are the same). #Closed

jcouv

Done with review pass (iteration 4). It's looking good modulo some test compaction and testing a couple more scenarios.

jcouv · 2021-03-24T14:53:27Z

Just a heads up on process for compiler features:

as any compiler PR, we need two reviews
although I don't expect much risk for this feature, we'll need IDE sign-off as well. I'll find an IDE buddy to represent
the team will a feature review to brainstorm some test (I'll start email later this week). Jared had a suggestion already.

thomaslevesque · 2021-03-25T00:25:56Z

@jcouv I think I addressed all comments from your last review
I merged all "_PreviewSealedRecordToString" tests with the C#9 tests using Theory and InlineData.
I added the required tests (to cover sealed ToString in base's base, and ToString with non-empty parameter list in base)

Jared had a suggestion already.

Ah, yes, that could be a problem... but if you try to do the same with records instead of classes, you get this:

error CS8869: 'D.ToString()' does not override expected method from 'object'.

So I don't think this situation can actually occur

jcouv · 2021-03-25T01:40:34Z

Ah, yes, that could be a problem... but if you try to do the same with records instead of classes, you get this

~~It should become possible in records with this PR.~~ You're right, it'll still be an error. Let's add the test please

jcouv

LGTM Thanks (iteration 5)

AlekseyTs · 2021-03-25T13:30:21Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/CSharpResources.resx

@@ -6600,4 +6600,7 @@ To remove the warning, you can use /reference instead (set the Embed Interop Typ
  <data name="ERR_FunctionPointerTypesInAttributeNotSupported" xml:space="preserve">
    <value>Using a function pointer type in a 'typeof' in an attribute is not supported.</value>
  </data>
+  <data name="IDS_FeatureSealedRecordToString" xml:space="preserve">
+    <value>sealed record ToString</value>


sealed record ToString [](start = 11, length = 22)

sealed record ToString [](start = 11, length = 22)

"sealed ToString in record"? #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-03-25T13:31:50Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Errors/MessageID.cs

@@ -324,6 +325,7 @@ internal static LanguageVersion RequiredVersion(this MessageID feature)
            {
                // C# preview features.
                case MessageID.IDS_FeatureMixedDeclarationsAndExpressionsInDeconstruction:
+                case MessageID.IDS_FeatureSealedRecordToString:


case MessageID.IDS_FeatureSealedRecordToString: [](start = 16, length = 47)

case MessageID.IDS_FeatureSealedRecordToString: [](start = 16, length = 47)

I am assuming this is a semantic check. Consider adding a comment. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-03-25T13:47:33Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs

+                            .SingleOrDefault(m => m.ParameterCount == 0 && m.ReturnType.SpecialType == SpecialType.System_String);
+
+                        if (method is not null)
+                            return method;


return method; [](start = 28, length = 14)

return method; [](start = 28, length = 14)

The fact that the name and the signature match doesn't mean this is an override of Object.ToString. We should be able to come up with a test scenario with base like that. If not defined in source, then in IL. #Closed

I think we should mimic the check that is performed by SynthesizedRecordObjectMethod.VerifyOverridesMethodFromObject, but I would also simplify its implementation by switching to GetSpecialTypeMember helper to locate the Object member and comparing it with leastOverridden instead of performing manual signature comparison.

In reply to: 601500624 [](ancestors = 601500624)

FYI, I just merged a refactoring for SynthesizedRecordObjectMethod.VerifyOverridesMethodFromObject to take advantage of SpecialMemeber.

In reply to: 601544539 [](ancestors = 601544539,601500624)

@AlekseyTs I made some changes to getBaseToStringMethod (compared least overriden to object.ToString(), replaced Linq usage with a loop). Is this what you had in mind?

AlekseyTs · 2021-03-25T13:55:21Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs

+                    {
+                        var toStringMethod = new SynthesizedRecordToString(this, printMethod, memberOffset: members.Count, diagnostics);
+                        members.Add(toStringMethod);
+                    }
                }
                else
                {
                    var toStringMethod = (MethodSymbol)existingToStringMethod;
                    if (!SynthesizedRecordObjectMethod.VerifyOverridesMethodFromObject(toStringMethod, SpecialType.System_String, diagnostics) && toStringMethod.IsSealed && !IsSealed)


!SynthesizedRecordObjectMethod.VerifyOverridesMethodFromObject(toStringMethod, SpecialType.System_String, diagnostics) [](start = 24, length = 118)

!SynthesizedRecordObjectMethod.VerifyOverridesMethodFromObject(toStringMethod, SpecialType.System_String, diagnostics) [](start = 24, length = 118)

If we allow sealing Object.ToString up the hierarchy, it feels like we should allow to declare new ToString method with the same parameter types that doesn't override Object.ToString, but shadows it instead. #Closed

I mean in cases when the override of Object.ToString is sealed up the hierarchy.

In reply to: 601507591 [](ancestors = 601507591)

@AlekseyTs

If we allow sealing Object.ToString up the hierarchy, it feels like we should allow to declare new ToString method with the same parameter types that doesn't override Object.ToString, but shadows it instead.

Why is it currently forbidden in records anyway?
Anyway, wouldn't it be out of scope for this PR? I set out to allow sealing ToString(), not remove a restriction I didn't even know about...

If we allow sealing Object.ToString up the hierarchy, it feels like we should allow to declare new ToString method with the same parameter types that doesn't override Object.ToString, but shadows it instead.
I mean in cases when the override of Object.ToString is sealed up the hierarchy.

Why is it currently forbidden in records anyway?
Anyway, wouldn't it be out of scope for this PR? I set out to allow sealing ToString(), not remove a restriction I didn't even know about...

This wasn't specifically forbidden. However, there was a requrement that a string ToString() method added explicitly overrides Object.ToString. We are lifting this requirement for cases when Object.ToString is sealed in a base class. Therefore, when one adds string ToString() method in a situation like that, compiler shouldn't require that that method overrides Object.ToString, because this simply cannot be done. It is not posible to override a sealed method. Please create a unit-test for this scenaro, I think that should give you the idea what I am talking about.

In reply to: 602653210 [](ancestors = 602653210)

Please create a unit-test for this scenaro, I think that should give you the idea what I am talking about.

@AlekseyTs do you mean something like this?

[Fact] public void ToString_NewToString_SealedBaseToString() { var source = @" public record A { public sealed override string ToString() => throw null; } public record B : A { public new string ToString() => throw null; }"; var comp = CreateCompilation(source, parseOptions: TestOptions.RegularPreview); comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(); }

This currently fails with this error:

// (9,23): error CS8869: 'B.ToString()' does not override expected method from 'object'. // public new string ToString() => throw null;

Should I make this test pass, then?

do you mean something like this?

Yes.

Should I make this test pass, then?

I think yes.

In reply to: 602934953 [](ancestors = 602934953)

AlekseyTs · 2021-03-25T14:03:27Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs

+                    {
+                        var method = tmp.GetSimpleNonTypeMembers(WellKnownMemberNames.ObjectToString)
+                            .OfType<MethodSymbol>()
+                            .SingleOrDefault(m => m.ParameterCount == 0 && m.ReturnType.SpecialType == SpecialType.System_String);


SingleOrDefault [](start = 29, length = 15)

SingleOrDefault [](start = 29, length = 15)

In metadata we could have more than one method with the same return type, but with different custom modifiers. Probably we should not assume there could be only one candidate, but instead check all of them. #Closed

@AlekseyTs the new matching logic (using least overridden) accounts for that, right?

AlekseyTs · 2021-03-25T14:27:06Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs

+                    while (tmp is not null)
+                    {
+                        var method = tmp.GetSimpleNonTypeMembers(WellKnownMemberNames.ObjectToString)
+                            .OfType<MethodSymbol>()


OfType [](start = 29, length = 6)

OfType [](start = 29, length = 6)

I think a regular loop through members would be preferred other the Linq query in this case. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-03-25T14:54:38Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+            var comp = CreateCompilationWithIL(
+                new[] { source, IsExternalInitTypeDefinition },
+                ilSource: ilSource,
+                parseOptions: usePreview ? TestOptions.RegularPreview : TestOptions.Regular9);


TestOptions.Regular9 [](start = 72, length = 20)

I think we should report a language version error for Regular9 because previous compiler wouldn't be able to compile this code and targeting that version should prevent a build break like that when compiler is switched back. #Closed

Sorry, maybe I'm a bit slow (it's 3 a.m. here), but I don't get it... Could you elaborate?

I think we should report a language version error for Regular9 because previous compiler wouldn't be able to compile this code and targeting that version should prevent a build break like that when compiler is switched back.

Sorry, maybe I'm a bit slow (it's 3 a.m. here), but I don't get it... Could you elaborate?

There is a requirement - If compiling some code with a particular language version succeeds, then compiling the same code by using an old version of the compiler that added support for that language version should also succeed and result should be equivalent. This is an error scenario in the previous version of the compiler. Therefore, when we compile this code with language version C# 9, we should report an error, saying that the language version should be bumped up.

In reply to: 602653525 [](ancestors = 602653525)

So, just to make sure I understand it right... If language version is 9, it should:

not emit a ToString() override (since the method is sealed in the base type)

emit a ERR_FeatureInPreview diagnostic

Is that correct?

I just worry that the error will be a bit confusing. The user would just be trying to inherit a record with a sealed ToString (e.g. from another assembly compiled with C# 10), but the error will say that "sealed ToString is records" is a preview feature.

So, just to make sure I understand it right... If language version is 9, it should:

not emit a ToString() override (since the method is sealed in the base type)

emit a ERR_FeatureInPreview diagnostic

Is that correct?

I just worry that the error will be a bit confusing. The user would just be trying to inherit a record with a sealed ToString (e.g. from another assembly compiled with C# 10), but the error will say that "sealed ToString is records" is a preview feature.

If the simple error will be confusing, we should consider adding a dedicated more descriptive error, which will request to bump the language version. For example: "Inheriting from a class with a sealed 'Object.ToString' is not supported in C# 9. Please use language version 'preview' or greater."

In reply to: 602872811 [](ancestors = 602872811)

OK, I addressed that in commit 7dcf815. (also added the new error message)

AlekseyTs · 2021-03-25T15:04:35Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

        [Fact]
-        public void ToString_DerivedRecord_BaseHasSealedToString()
+        public void ToString_DerivedRecord_BaseBaseHasSealedToString()


ToString_DerivedRecord_BaseBaseHasSealedToString [](start = 20, length = 48)

I think we should add more tests for:

trying to override the sealed method explicitly and how next level derived records are going to behave.

trying to shadow method, including in a way when it will not be accessible in derived types, including when shadowed method is not sealed.

inheritance behvior in presence of shadowing up the hierarhy #Closed

trying to override the sealed method explicitly and how next level derived records are going to behave.

Done in ToString_DerivedRecord_BaseBaseHasSealedToString_And_BaseTriesToOverride

trying to shadow method, including in a way when it will not be accessible in derived types, including when shadowed method is not sealed.

Done in ToString_DerivedRecord_BaseBaseHasSealedToString_And_BaseShadowsToStringPrivate and ToString_DerivedRecord_BaseBaseHasSealedToString_And_BaseShadowsToStringNonSealed

inheritance behvior in presence of shadowing up the hierarhy

I think this is already covered in ToString_NewToString_SealedBaseToString

AlekseyTs · 2021-03-25T15:06:17Z

Done with review pass (commit 5) #Closed

thomaslevesque · 2021-03-27T01:07:27Z

You're right, it'll still be an error. Let's add the test please

@jcouv sorry, I don't get it. What test should I add?

And don't generate ToString if base implementation is sealed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-02T14:32:23Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs

+                var baseToStringMethod = getBaseToStringMethod();
+                bool isBaseToStringSealed = baseToStringMethod is { IsSealed: true };
+
+                if (isBaseToStringSealed)


isBaseToStringSealed [](start = 20, length = 20)

Since this local is used only in one place, consider inlining baseToStringMethod is { IsSealed: true } condition here, then we wouldn't need to supress nullable warnings when baseToStringMethod is dereferenced. #Closed

Done #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-02T14:40:14Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

    }
 }
 ";
            var source = @"
+var b = new B();
+System.Console.Write(b.ToString());


Did you mean to execute code in success branch below? #Closed

Oops, yes I did.

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-02T14:51:18Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+";
+
+            var comp = CreateCompilation(src, parseOptions: TestOptions.RegularPreview, options: TestOptions.DebugExe);
+            comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics();


comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(); [](start = 12, length = 29)

I think it will be good to assert that there is no ToString method in C3. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-02T14:51:41Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+";
+
+            var comp = CreateCompilation(src, parseOptions: TestOptions.RegularPreview, options: TestOptions.DebugExe);
+            comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics();


comp.VerifyEmitDiagnostics(); [](start = 12, length = 29)

I think it will be good to assert that there is no ToString method in C3. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-02T15:00:10Z

Done with review pass (commit 19) #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-02T17:11:51Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs

                {
-                    var toStringMethod = new SynthesizedRecordToString(this, printMethod, memberOffset: members.Count, diagnostics);
-                    members.Add(toStringMethod);
+                    if (baseToStringMethod!.ContainingModule != this.ContainingModule && !this.DeclaringCompilation.IsFeatureEnabled(MessageID.IDS_FeatureSealedToStringInRecord))


! [](start = 42, length = 1)

Is the suppression still needed? #Closed

No, it's not. I removed it. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-02T17:38:19Z

src/EditorFeatures/CSharpTest/Diagnostics/UpgradeProject/UpgradeProjectTests.cs

+        [Fact]
+        public async Task UpgradeProjectForSealedToStringInRecords_CS8912()
+        {
+            await TestLanguageVersionUpgradedAsync(


TestLanguageVersionUpgradedAsync [](start = 18, length = 32)

Did you confirm that the test fails without changes in CSharpUpgradeProjectCodeFixProvider? #Closed

Yes. It failed with "No action was offered when one was expected" #Closed

Obsolete

AlekseyTs

LGTM (commit 23) with a couple of questions.

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-02T17:45:40Z

@jcouv Please review the latest revision.

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-02T17:49:27Z

@dotnet/roslyn-ide Please review IDE side of changes

AlekseyTs

LGTM (commit 24)

jcouv

LGTM Thanks (iteration 24)

jcouv · 2021-04-10T01:45:50Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2021-04-10T01:46:09Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 3 pipeline(s).

jcouv · 2021-04-10T03:21:20Z

Merged/squashed. Thanks @thomaslevesque for the contribution!

thomaslevesque · 2021-04-10T23:31:24Z

Thanks for the review @jcouv and @AlekseyTs!

dotnet-issue-labeler bot added the Area-Compilers label Mar 21, 2021

thomaslevesque commented Mar 21, 2021

View reviewed changes

thomaslevesque marked this pull request as ready for review March 21, 2021 01:03

thomaslevesque requested a review from a team as a code owner March 21, 2021 01:03

thomaslevesque mentioned this pull request Mar 21, 2021

[Proposal]: Records with sealed base ToString override dotnet/csharplang#4174

Open

4 tasks

jcouv added Community The pull request was submitted by a contributor who is not a Microsoft employee. Feature - Records Records labels Mar 21, 2021

jcouv self-assigned this Mar 21, 2021

jcouv reviewed Mar 24, 2021

View reviewed changes

jcouv previously approved these changes Mar 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

AlekseyTs reviewed Mar 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

Allow record's ToString method to be sealed

7d8a78b

And don't generate ToString if base implementation is sealed

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

thomaslevesque added 4 commits April 2, 2021 18:28

Inline variable

69a11de

Assert records have no ToString method

8c86ad0

Execute code in ToString_BadBase_SealedToString

bf32bb0

Add support for project upgrade for CS8912

e9677f1

thomaslevesque requested a review from a team as a code owner April 2, 2021 17:08

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

AlekseyTs approved these changes Apr 2, 2021

View reviewed changes

Remove unnecessary null-forgiving operator

3dfae84

AlekseyTs approved these changes Apr 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

jcouv self-requested a review April 8, 2021 18:41

jcouv approved these changes Apr 9, 2021

View reviewed changes

jcouv merged commit 95b5e8d into dotnet:main Apr 10, 2021

ghost added this to the Next milestone Apr 10, 2021

thomaslevesque deleted the record-sealed-tostring branch April 10, 2021 23:30

jnm2 mentioned this pull request Apr 11, 2021

Test plan for "sealed record ToString" #52031

Closed

2 tasks

dibarbet modified the milestones: Next, 16.10.P3 Apr 26, 2021

Allow record's ToString method to be sealed #52029

Allow record's ToString method to be sealed #52029

Conversation

thomaslevesque commented Mar 21, 2021

jcouv commented Mar 21, 2021 • edited Loading

jcouv commented Mar 21, 2021 • edited Loading

thomaslevesque commented Mar 23, 2021

RikkiGibson commented Mar 23, 2021

jcouv Mar 24, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thomaslevesque Mar 24, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thomaslevesque Mar 24, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thomaslevesque Mar 25, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Mar 24, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv commented Mar 24, 2021

thomaslevesque commented Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

jcouv commented Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

jcouv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Mar 26, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

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

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

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

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs commented Mar 25, 2021 • edited Loading

thomaslevesque commented Mar 27, 2021

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

thomaslevesque Apr 2, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv commented Mar 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jcouv commented Mar 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Mar 24, 2021 •

edited

Loading

thomaslevesque Mar 24, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

thomaslevesque Mar 24, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

jcouv Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

thomaslevesque Mar 25, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

jcouv Mar 24, 2021 •

edited

Loading

thomaslevesque commented Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jcouv commented Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Mar 26, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Mar 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

thomaslevesque Apr 2, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Apr 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

thomaslevesque Apr 2, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading

thomaslevesque Apr 2, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs left a comment •

edited

Loading