Add 'aws_cognito_user_pool_client' resource #1803

psyvision · 2017-10-03T19:47:13Z

Description

The following pull request builds upon the work of @Ninir implementing Cognito User Pools (not yet merged) by adding support for Cognito User Pool Clients.

I've added some documentation on using the new resource.

Note: This doesn't provide full API support at current but does allow a client to be created and the ClientId returned.

API Documentation

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cognito-user-identity-pools/latest/APIReference/API_CreateUserPoolClient.html

Test

make testacc TEST=./aws TESTARGS='-run=TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_'
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test ./aws -v -run=TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_ -timeout 120m
=== RUN   TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_basic (19.11s)
PASS
ok      github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws       19.126s

Resources

resource "aws_cognito_user_pool_client" "client" {
}

psyvision · 2017-11-15T20:17:02Z

@radeksimko do you have any pointers on how I should implement the custom user pool client attributes that belong to the user pool client?

See the AWS API reference below:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/cognito-user-identity-pools/latest/APIReference/API_AddCustomAttributes.html

These are different to the typical "attributes" that belong to resources (i.e. attributes are an entity in themselves to some extent).

I could add a further resource "aws_cognito_user_pool_client_attribute" or have them as a set on the client_pool resource I've already added, similar to ingress/egress rules on a security group...

radeksimko · 2017-11-15T21:12:03Z

We will take a look at this PR 🔜 after merging #1419 which should be either today or tomorrow, but given the tight schedule for 1.3.0 we intend to ship tomorrow I reckon we'll leave this PR for the next release.

Ninir · 2017-11-16T21:10:37Z

Hi @psyvision

User Pools have just been merged and it's all available in AWS 1.3.0!
Could you rebase your PR against master so that we can go on on this one?

Thanks!

psyvision · 2017-11-17T08:22:41Z

Hi @Ninir,

I saw that, I'll merge in this evening for you :)

Cheers

psyvision · 2017-11-17T18:52:22Z

@Ninir I got there one way or another, all merged now!

et304383 · 2017-11-20T13:20:18Z

So excited to see this coming in soon!

psyvision · 2017-11-20T14:48:13Z

@et304383 am I correct in thinking you want custom attribute support too? We need that but I'm not sure how to code it. Once @Ninir gets started on this PR I'll see what I can sort out.

et304383 · 2017-11-20T14:51:13Z

@psyvision that would be nice to have long term but in the short term what we need is the ability to create them and specify the refresh token validity.

We need React frontends to be able to interact with Cognito as a priority. We've resorted to adding the client creation through a python script in the short term.

CalebMacdonaldBlack · 2017-11-27T07:15:05Z

@psyvision @Ninir Great to see cognito user pools! Just waiting on app clients and custom attributes before we can use it

psyvision · 2017-11-27T08:19:54Z

@CalebMacdonaldBlack app clients are in, I can't remember if I covered off all functionality (I think maybe so...) I don't know how to go about implementing custom attributes, otherwise I would have done so. Once @Ninir gets on to this or gives me some pointers I'll do it :)

radeksimko

Hi @psyvision
thanks for the PR. I left you some comments.

Regarding custom attributes I think we should model that as a separate resource, e.g. aws_cognito_user_attribute - which is outside of scope of this PR. We'll also need to find out whether/how it conflicts with existing resources.

radeksimko · 2017-12-04T16:35:37Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+
+	if v, ok := d.GetOk("refresh_token_validity"); ok {
+		params.RefreshTokenValidity = aws.Int64(v.(int64))
+	}


I see there are some fields missing in the schema:

AllowedOAuthFlows []*string `type:"list"` // Set to True if the client is allowed to follow the OAuth protocol when interacting // with Cognito user pools. AllowedOAuthFlowsUserPoolClient *bool `type:"boolean"` // A list of allowed OAuth scopes. Currently supported values are "phone", "email", // "openid", and "Cognito". AllowedOAuthScopes []*string `type:"list"` // A list of allowed callback URLs for the identity providers. CallbackURLs []*string `type:"list"` // The default redirect URI. Must be in the CallbackURLs list. DefaultRedirectURI *string `min:"1" type:"string"` // A list of allowed logout URLs for the identity providers. LogoutURLs []*string `type:"list"` // A list of provider names for the identity providers that are supported on // this client. SupportedIdentityProviders []*string `type:"list"`

Do you plan on adding those?

I haven't used these so I'm not sure exactly what's best / what's expected or to be able to test them for real. I can have a go though :D

Yeah - I think the best we can do is to read the relevant docs and try to build a few simple examples with those fields in a test based on that. If you want to test it for real (i.e. login in the browser) then I take that as a bonus, but I'd just assume it works as long as the API accepts our request. 🤷‍♂️

radeksimko · 2017-12-04T16:39:14Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+
+			"refresh_token_validity": {
+				Type:         schema.TypeInt,
+				Optional:     true,


The default validity seems to be set to 30 by the API which is why the acceptance test is failing:

=== RUN TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_basic --- FAIL: TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_basic (34.36s) testing.go:503: Step 0 error: After applying this step, the plan was not empty: DIFF: UPDATE: aws_cognito_user_pool_client.client refresh_token_validity: "30" => "0"

Do you mind setting Default: 30 here too?

No issues with that

radeksimko · 2017-12-04T16:40:57Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+	}
+
+	if v, ok := d.GetOk("refresh_token_validity"); ok {
+		params.RefreshTokenValidity = aws.Int64(v.(int64))


We get int, not int64 from the ResourceData, so this would cause a crash due to invalid cast. I think we'll need to change it to something like this:

params.RefreshTokenValidity = aws.Int64(int64(v.(int)))

I hadn't actually tested this in AWS and was just going on what VS Code was telling me so I'll take your call.

radeksimko · 2017-12-04T16:41:45Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+	resp, err := conn.DescribeUserPoolClient(params)
+
+	if err != nil {
+		if awsErr, ok := err.(awserr.Error); ok && awsErr.Code() == "ResourceNotFoundException" {


Nitpick: this error handling here can be simplified to

if isAWSErr(err, "ResourceNotFoundException", "") {

radeksimko · 2017-12-04T16:42:49Z

website/docs/r/cognito_user_pool_client.markdown

+* `name` - (Required) The name of the application client.
+* `generate_secret` - (Optional) Should an application secret be generated. AWS JavaScript SDK requires this to be false.
+* `user_pool_id` - (Required) The user pool the client belongs to.
+* `explicit_auth_flows` - (Optional) List of authentication flows (ADMIN_NO_SRP_AUTH, CUSTOM_AUTH_FLOW_ONLY)


I think the list of fields here is incomplete - do you mind updating it?

radeksimko · 2017-12-04T16:46:20Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+			"name": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeString,
+				Required: true,
+				ForceNew: true,


It looks like this field is updatable (at least it's present in UpdateUserPoolClientInput) - is there any reason for making it ForceNew?

Nope, just me not knowing what's what :)

radeksimko · 2017-12-04T16:49:27Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+			"explicit_auth_flows": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeList,
+				Optional: true,
+				ForceNew: false,


It looks like this field is updatable (at least it's present in UpdateUserPoolClientInput) - is there any reason for making it ForceNew?

Not sure which field this refers to? If explicit_auth_flows then it's false

Ah, sorry - I missed that - so in that case it's practically correct, but it's false by default so we can just omit it.

radeksimko · 2017-12-04T16:50:11Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+			"read_attributes": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeList,
+				Optional: true,
+				ForceNew: false,


Likewise - ^

read_attributes is ForceNew: false but I guess the redundant code can be removed

Yes, it can be removed - there's no point of having ForceNew: false anywhere as that's default. 😉

radeksimko · 2017-12-04T16:50:15Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+			"write_attributes": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeList,
+				Optional: true,
+				ForceNew: false,


Likewise - ^

write_attributes is ForceNew: false but I guess the redundant code can be removed

radeksimko · 2017-12-04T16:50:35Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+			"refresh_token_validity": {
+				Type:         schema.TypeInt,
+				Optional:     true,
+				ForceNew:     false,


Likewise - ^

It's just redundant - that's all 😉

psyvision · 2017-12-04T19:28:05Z

@radeksimko Thank you for reviewing these. I'll go through and make some changes where required. I don't think the attributes are needed. I looked into it and they actually fall under the aws_cognito_user_pool implemented in 1.3.0 (I think) and not in the client.

radeksimko · 2017-12-05T20:19:48Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+
+	if resp.UserPoolClient.ClientSecret != nil {
+		d.Set("client_secret", resp.UserPoolClient.ClientSecret)
+	}


d.Set() will perform safe dereferencing (and deal with nil without crashing), so all of the above 5 checks are redundant. 😉

Ah thanks. I've been copying code from elsewhere rather than looking into the intracacies. I'll add that to my changes. Just had to rebuild my dev VM

psyvision · 2017-12-05T21:07:48Z

ok @radeksimko I've covered off the items in your review I think. Just need to add in those final attributes which I'll do shortly.

radeksimko · 2017-12-11T10:34:36Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+
+	d.SetId(*resp.UserPoolClient.ClientId)
+	d.Set("user_pool_id", *resp.UserPoolClient.UserPoolId)
+	d.Set("name", *resp.UserPoolClient.ClientName)


The two d.Set()s are IMO unnecessary unless we believe the API would return something that differs from the original query - in which case we'd probably have much bigger problem.

radeksimko · 2017-12-11T12:37:12Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+					Type: schema.TypeString,
+					ValidateFunc: validation.StringInSlice([]string{
+						cognitoidentityprovider.AuthFlowTypeAdminNoSrpAuth,
+						cognitoidentityprovider.AuthFlowTypeCustomAuth,


I think this should be cognitoidentityprovider.ExplicitAuthFlowsTypeCustomAuthFlowOnly per API docs.

radeksimko · 2017-12-11T12:44:22Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client_test.go

+		},
+	})
+}
+


I think we'll need at least one more test to exercise as many fields as we can. I'd usually call such test TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_allFields.

radeksimko · 2017-12-11T12:48:20Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+			},
+
+			"allowed_oauth_scopes": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeList,


AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) ordering is not significant in this case, so we should make this field TypeSet.

radeksimko · 2017-12-11T12:48:32Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+			},
+
+			"read_attributes": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeList,


AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) ordering is not significant in this case, so we should make this field TypeSet.

radeksimko · 2017-12-11T12:48:39Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+			},
+
+			"write_attributes": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeList,


AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) ordering is not significant in this case, so we should make this field TypeSet.

radeksimko · 2017-12-11T12:48:48Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+			},
+
+			"explicit_auth_flows": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeList,


AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) ordering is not significant in this case, so we should make this field TypeSet.

radeksimko · 2017-12-11T12:49:01Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+			},
+
+			"allowed_oauth_flows": {
+				Type:     schema.TypeList,


AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) ordering is not significant in this case, so we should make this field TypeSet.

psyvision · 2017-12-11T15:17:39Z

@radeksimko changes made. I'll make up some tests tonight :)

radeksimko · 2017-12-12T10:29:55Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client_test.go

+		CheckDestroy: testAccCheckAWSCognitoUserPoolClientDestroy,
+		Steps: []resource.TestStep{
+			{
+				Config: testAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClientConfig_basic(name),


I think you're referencing wrong config here 😉

Let me know when it's ready for another round of review.

psyvision · 2017-12-12T19:21:51Z

@radeksimko I've changed the test, I was going to run the acceptance test but wanted to run just the user pool client ones if possible. I can't remember how to do this.... ?

Edit: Got it !

psyvision · 2017-12-12T20:54:28Z

@radeksimko Tests corrected and working:

make testacc TESTARGS="-run=TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_*"
==> Checking that code complies with gofmt requirements...
TF_ACC=1 go test $(go list ./... |grep -v 'vendor') -v -run=TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_* -timeout 120m
?   	github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws	[no test files]
=== RUN   TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_basic
--- PASS: TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_basic (21.63s)
=== RUN   TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_allFields
--- PASS: TestAccAWSCognitoUserPoolClient_allFields (19.32s)
PASS
ok  	github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-aws/aws	40.966s

radeksimko · 2018-01-03T09:06:57Z

Hi @psyvision
it looks like this is almost ready for the final review & merge, there are just some conflicts as it seems there are some unrelated commits in your branch, possibly as a result of earlier conflict resolution?

I'd recommend using interactive rebase and remove all unrelated commits from the branch, see https://git-scm.com/book/id/v2/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History or let me know if you need help with that. Eventually I can try and resolve it for you.

psyvision · 2018-01-03T22:59:34Z

Well that's royally buggered it!

psyvision · 2018-01-04T08:33:11Z

@radeksimko was getting late last night and I kept messing up the rebase. I need to just drop commit 52143f4, the ses changes and then I think it's done properly.

psyvision · 2018-01-04T09:14:55Z

@radeksimko done!

et304383 · 2018-01-04T15:07:31Z

Anything else holding this up folks? We are immediately dealing with an issue with creating the following:

cognito user pool
cognito user pool client
cognito identity using the user pool client

Without the user pool client support we're going to have to hack something together with:

terraform dir 1
python script
terraform dir 2 with numerous data source lookups

serialseb · 2018-01-04T18:03:42Z

if that helps, in the meantime, i use this:

resource "aws_cloudformation_stack" "user_pool_client" {
  name          = "${var.name}-user-pool-client"
  template_body = "${file("${path.module}/templates/stack.yml")}"
  on_failure    = "DELETE"

  parameters {
    UserPoolId = "${var.user_pool_id}"
    ClientName = "${var.name}"
  }
}

with a cloudformation yml

AWSTemplateFormatVersion: 2010-09-09
Parameters:
  UserPoolId:
    Type: String
  ClientName:
    Type: String
Resources:
  UserPoolClient:
    Type: 'AWS::Cognito::UserPoolClient'
    Properties:
      UserPoolId: !Ref UserPoolId
      ClientName: !Ref ClientName
      GenerateSecret: False
      RefreshTokenValidity: xxx
      ExplicitAuthFlows:
        - xxx
Outputs:
  Id:
    Value:
      Ref: UserPoolClient

and for on top of that, for the stuff not in cloudformation



resource "null_resource" "user_pool_client_identities" {
  depends_on = ["aws_cloudformation_stack.user_pool_client"]
  triggers {
    client_id = "${aws_cloudformation_stack.user_pool_client.outputs["Id"]}"
    stack        = "${aws_cloudformation_stack.user_pool_client.template_body}"
    user_pool_id = "${var.user_pool_id}"
    oauth_flows = "${join("", var.allowed_oauth_flows)}"
    oauth_scopes = "${join("", var.allowed_oauth_scopes)}"
  }

  provisioner "local-exec" {
    when ="create"
    command = <<SCRIPT
aws cognito-idp update-user-pool-client \
      --profile wf \
      --user-pool-id ${var.user_pool_id} \
      --client-id ${aws_cloudformation_stack.user_pool_client.outputs["Id"]} \
      --supported-identity-providers ${join(" ", formatlist("\"%s\"", var.supported_identity_providers))} \
      --callback-urls '[${join(",", formatlist("\"%s\"", var.callback_urls))}]' \
      --logout-urls '[${join(",", formatlist("\"%s\"", var.logout_urls))}]' \
      --allowed-o-auth-flows ${join(" ", formatlist("\"%s\"", var.allowed_oauth_flows))} \
      --allowed-o-auth-scopes ${join(" ", formatlist("\"%s\"", var.allowed_oauth_scopes))}
SCRIPT
  }
}

I've built that as a module, until the resource is ready.

et304383 · 2018-01-04T18:14:24Z

@serialseb this is amazing. Thanks so much. I didn't know you could write custom resources backed by shell commands. You rock.

radeksimko

LGTM now, thanks for the patience and all changes.

radeksimko · 2018-01-11T09:02:36Z

aws/provider.go

@@ -293,7 +293,7 @@ func Provider() terraform.ResourceProvider {
 			"aws_cognito_identity_pool_roles_attachment":   resourceAwsCognitoIdentityPoolRolesAttachment(),
 			"aws_cognito_user_pool":                        resourceAwsCognitoUserPool(),
 			"aws_cognito_user_pool_domain":                 resourceAwsCognitoUserPoolDomain(),
-			"aws_autoscaling_lifecycle_hook":               resourceAwsAutoscalingLifecycleHook(),
+			"aws_cognito_user_pool_client":                 resourceAwsCognitoUserPoolClient(),


I believe that the removal of aws_autoscaling_lifecycle_hook was not intended here - I'll address that in a separate commit.

radeksimko · 2018-01-11T09:03:21Z

aws/resource_aws_cognito_user_pool_client.go

+				},
+			},
+
+			// analytics_configuration


I'll add TODO here as a reminder and to make it clearer what the comment means.

psyvision · 2018-01-11T09:23:33Z

Thank you @radeksimko!

radeksimko · 2018-01-11T09:26:03Z

I didn't mean to close that... wanted to cleanup your git history and somehow managed to close it.
Anyways it's now in master under c583147b8c8b872c6c06dddee62ceb0a7b410646.

Just a friendly note for future PRs:
It can make everyone's life much easier if you open PR from a branch, not from master. It's easier for rebasing, resolving conflicts etc. 😉

et304383 · 2018-01-11T12:44:27Z

I'm a little confused now. @radeksimko is user pool client now in master? Are we just waiting for a new terraform version?

radeksimko · 2018-01-11T16:55:17Z

it's in master, will be part of the next release.

bflad · 2018-01-12T14:29:00Z

This has been released in terraform-provider-aws version 1.7.0. Please see the Terraform documentation on provider versioning or reach out if you need any assistance upgrading.

ghost · 2020-04-08T17:51:56Z

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. Thanks!

psyvision changed the title ~~Cognito User Pool Client~~ Add 'aws_cognito_user_pool_client' resource Oct 4, 2017

radeksimko added the new-resource Introduces a new resource. label Oct 9, 2017

radeksimko modified the milestones: v1.2.0, v1.3.0 Oct 26, 2017

radeksimko added the size/XXL Managed by automation to categorize the size of a PR. label Nov 15, 2017

radeksimko modified the milestones: v1.3.0, v1.4.0 Nov 15, 2017

radeksimko added the waiting-response Maintainers are waiting on response from community or contributor. label Nov 17, 2017

Ninir mentioned this pull request Nov 20, 2017

Missing AWS Cognito Support #232

Closed

radeksimko suggested changes Dec 4, 2017

View reviewed changes

radeksimko reviewed Dec 5, 2017

View reviewed changes

radeksimko removed the waiting-response Maintainers are waiting on response from community or contributor. label Dec 6, 2017

radeksimko reviewed Dec 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

radeksimko added the waiting-response Maintainers are waiting on response from community or contributor. label Dec 11, 2017

radeksimko reviewed Dec 12, 2017

View reviewed changes

psyvision force-pushed the master branch from cf661ac to 6046a40 Compare January 3, 2018 22:47

psyvision force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from b978a13 to 6176813 Compare January 3, 2018 23:51

psyvision force-pushed the master branch from 6176813 to 7be19fb Compare January 4, 2018 09:10

radeksimko approved these changes Jan 11, 2018

View reviewed changes

radeksimko force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from 2cfa50d to 5486927 Compare January 11, 2018 09:20

radeksimko removed the waiting-response Maintainers are waiting on response from community or contributor. label Jan 11, 2018

radeksimko closed this Jan 11, 2018

radeksimko force-pushed the master branch from 5486927 to 1958fc8 Compare January 11, 2018 09:23

radeksimko mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2018

New resource: aws_cognito_user_pool_app_client #2874

Closed

bflad modified the milestones: v1.4.0, v1.7.0 Jan 12, 2018

bflad mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2018

Fix Cognito RoleMapping validation for Token types #2894

Merged

ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 8, 2020

Add 'aws_cognito_user_pool_client' resource #1803

Add 'aws_cognito_user_pool_client' resource #1803

Conversation

psyvision commented Oct 3, 2017 • edited Loading

Description

API Documentation

Test

Resources

psyvision commented Nov 15, 2017

radeksimko commented Nov 15, 2017

Ninir commented Nov 16, 2017

psyvision commented Nov 17, 2017

psyvision commented Nov 17, 2017

et304383 commented Nov 20, 2017

psyvision commented Nov 20, 2017

et304383 commented Nov 20, 2017

CalebMacdonaldBlack commented Nov 27, 2017

psyvision commented Nov 27, 2017

radeksimko left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

radeksimko Dec 5, 2017 • 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

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

psyvision Dec 4, 2017 • 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

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

psyvision commented Dec 4, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

psyvision commented Dec 5, 2017

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

psyvision commented Dec 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

psyvision commented Dec 12, 2017 • edited Loading

psyvision commented Dec 12, 2017

radeksimko commented Jan 3, 2018

psyvision commented Jan 3, 2018

psyvision commented Jan 4, 2018

psyvision commented Jan 4, 2018

et304383 commented Jan 4, 2018

serialseb commented Jan 4, 2018

et304383 commented Jan 4, 2018

radeksimko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

psyvision commented Jan 11, 2018

radeksimko commented Jan 11, 2018

et304383 commented Jan 11, 2018

radeksimko commented Jan 11, 2018

bflad commented Jan 12, 2018

ghost commented Apr 8, 2020

psyvision commented Oct 3, 2017 •

edited

Loading

radeksimko left a comment •

edited

Loading

radeksimko Dec 5, 2017 •

edited

Loading

psyvision Dec 4, 2017 •

edited

Loading

psyvision commented Dec 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading