Record-structs: remove RecordStructDeclarationSyntax #52702

jcouv · 2021-04-17T19:47:33Z

Test plan: #51199

CyrusNajmabadi · 2021-04-17T20:11:19Z

I'm curious what you thought about the change. To me it reads better. What do you think? #Resolved

jcouv · 2021-04-17T20:14:10Z

@CyrusNajmabadi Got scared by last minute change and editing publicAPI is still annoying as hell at the moment, but I like the change. Thanks for the suggestion! #Resolved

CyrusNajmabadi · 2021-04-18T00:23:21Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Compilation/SyntaxTreeSemanticModel.cs

-                            break;
-                    }
-                    break;
-


yes. this change alone makes me want this PR :) #Resolved

CyrusNajmabadi · 2021-04-18T00:24:50Z

src/Features/CSharp/Portable/GenerateType/CSharpGenerateTypeService.cs

@@ -671,7 +671,7 @@ internal override bool TryGetBaseList(ExpressionSyntax expression, out TypeKindO
            {
                if (node is BaseListSyntax)
                {
-                    if (node.Parent is InterfaceDeclarationSyntax or StructDeclarationSyntax or RecordStructDeclarationSyntax)
+                    if (node.Parent is InterfaceDeclarationSyntax or StructDeclarationSyntax)


this feels like we need to add node.Parent.Kind() == SyntaxKind.RecordStruct #Resolved

CyrusNajmabadi · 2021-04-18T00:25:43Z

src/Workspaces/CSharp/Portable/CodeGeneration/NamedTypeGenerator.cs

-                    ? SyntaxFactory.RecordDeclaration(SyntaxFactory.Token(SyntaxKind.RecordKeyword), namedType.Name.ToIdentifierToken())
-                    : SyntaxFactory.RecordStructDeclaration(SyntaxFactory.Token(SyntaxKind.RecordKeyword), namedType.Name.ToIdentifierToken());
+                var declarationKind = namedType.TypeKind is TypeKind.Class ? SyntaxKind.RecordDeclaration : SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration;
+                typeDeclaration = SyntaxFactory.RecordDeclaration(declarationKind, SyntaxFactory.Token(SyntaxKind.RecordKeyword), namedType.Name.ToIdentifierToken());


does RecordStructDeclaration cause SyntaxFactory.RecordDeclaration to create the struct token? If not, we need to do that here. #Resolved

CyrusNajmabadi

Definitely like the change. A couple of subtle IDE issues potentially.

davidwengier

This should make supporting Edit and Continue just a couple of new cases in a couple of SyntaxKind switches 😄

davidwengier · 2021-04-18T02:30:21Z

src/Workspaces/CSharp/Portable/CodeGeneration/NamedTypeGenerator.cs

-                    : SyntaxFactory.RecordStructDeclaration(SyntaxFactory.Token(SyntaxKind.RecordKeyword), namedType.Name.ToIdentifierToken());
+                var isRecordClass = namedType.TypeKind is TypeKind.Class;
+                var declarationKind = isRecordClass ? SyntaxKind.RecordDeclaration : SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration;
+                var classOrStructKeyword = SyntaxFactory.Token(isRecordClass ? default : SyntaxKind.ClassKeyword);


I'm on my phone, so might have missed something, but shouldn't this be SyntaxKind.StructKeyword? Or does specifying the syntax kind mean it will automatically use a strict keyword? But if so, why specify the class keyword? #Resolved

I'm on my phone, so might have missed something, but shouldn't this be SyntaxKind.StructKeyword? Or does specifying the syntax kind mean it will automatically use a strict keyword? But if so, why specify the class keyword?

I agree, it looks like it should have been StructKeyword. Also needs tests if possible. #Resolved

Thanks. We don't yet have any scenarios that need generation of record structs, so this will get coverage when we do. #Resolved

alrz · 2021-04-18T05:24:07Z

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

+                Debug.Assert(builder.RecordDeclarationWithParameters is RecordDeclarationSyntax { ParameterList: not null } record
+                    && record.Kind() == SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration);


This made me realize a void Deconstruct(this SyntaxNode, out SyntaxKind) might be actually useful. Currently matching multi-kind nodes is kind of ugly..

is RecordDeclarationSyntax(SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration) { ParameterList: not null }

That's a really interesting suggestion. I've also struggled with the fact that Kind is a method and can't be used with pattern matching.

Youssef1313 · 2021-04-18T12:35:22Z

src/Features/CSharp/Portable/GenerateType/CSharpGenerateTypeService.cs

@@ -671,7 +671,8 @@ internal override bool TryGetBaseList(ExpressionSyntax expression, out TypeKindO
            {
                if (node is BaseListSyntax)
                {
-                    if (node.Parent is InterfaceDeclarationSyntax or StructDeclarationSyntax or RecordStructDeclarationSyntax)
+                    if (node.Parent is InterfaceDeclarationSyntax or StructDeclarationSyntax
+                        || node.Parent.Kind() == SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration)


Suggested change

|| node.Parent.Kind() == SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration)

|| node.Parent.IsKind(SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration))

...ted/CSharpSyntaxGenerator/CSharpSyntaxGenerator.SourceGenerator/Syntax.xml.Main.Generated.cs

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T14:17:43Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/BinderFactory.BinderFactoryVisitor.cs

@@ -1142,8 +1139,7 @@ private Binder GetParameterNameAttributeValueBinder(MemberDeclarationSyntax memb
                    return new WithParametersBinder(method.Parameters, nextBinder);
                }

-                if (memberSyntax is RecordDeclarationSyntax { ParameterList: { ParameterCount: > 0 } }
-                    or RecordStructDeclarationSyntax { ParameterList: { ParameterCount: > 0 } })
+                if (memberSyntax is RecordDeclarationSyntax { ParameterList: { ParameterCount: > 0 } })


RecordDeclarationSyntax

Have you confirmed that all remaining type checks for RecordDeclarationSyntax are applicable to record structs or appropriately adjusted? Same for Visit methods. #Closed

Yes. I have a list. The places that previously only handled RecordDeclarationSyntax are guarded (kind check or base type check). Some are guarded locally and are checked elsewhere (unreachable).
For the latter cases, I didn't see anything wrong with them. I could add assertions if you think that's useful.
An example is ExpressionVariableFinder.VisitRecordDeclaration.

In reply to: 616728346 [](ancestors = 616728346)

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T14:24:18Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Compilation/SyntaxTreeSemanticModel.cs

-                case RecordStructDeclarationSyntax recordStructDeclaration when TryGetSynthesizedRecordConstructor(recordStructDeclaration) is SynthesizedRecordConstructor ctor:
-                    switch (declaredSymbol.Kind)
-                    {
-                        case SymbolKind.Method:


case SymbolKind.Method:

I think we should preserve the difference for this case. #Closed

I'm not seeing why (here or below). We get the same behavior. Do you mean just as an optimization?

In reply to: 616734766 [](ancestors = 616734766)

Oh, I see. This would be necessary if we add assertion in PrimaryConstructorBaseType as you suggested... Let me take a look

In reply to: 616930880 [](ancestors = 616930880,616734766)

I'm not seeing why (here or below). We get the same behavior. Do you mean just as an optimization?

I do not think we should look at bases for record structs even when they are present in an error scenario #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T14:25:52Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Compilation/SyntaxTreeSemanticModel.cs

-                                return true;
-                            };
-
-                        case SymbolKind.NamedType:


case SymbolKind.NamedType:

I think we should preserve the difference for this case. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T14:44:23Z

        public TypeDeclarationSyntax? RecordDeclarationWithParameters

RecordDeclarationSyntax? #Closed

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMemberContainerSymbol.cs:2489 in 9c48dd6. [](commit_id = 9c48dd6, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T14:45:10Z

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

@@ -2491,7 +2491,7 @@ private sealed class DeclaredMembersAndInitializersBuilder
                get { return _recordDeclarationWithParameters; }
                set
                {
-                    Debug.Assert(value is RecordDeclarationSyntax or RecordStructDeclarationSyntax);
+                    Debug.Assert(value is RecordDeclarationSyntax);


Debug.Assert(value is RecordDeclarationSyntax);

The assert will be unnecessary after the type change for the property. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T14:47:53Z

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

-            };
+            ParameterListSyntax? paramList = declaredMembersAndInitializers.RecordDeclarationWithParameters is RecordDeclarationSyntax recordDecl
+                ? recordDecl.ParameterList
+                : null;


declaredMembersAndInitializers.RecordDeclarationWithParameters?.ParameterList? #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T14:50:42Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Synthesized/Records/SynthesizedRecordConstructor.cs

-                _ => throw ExceptionUtilities.Unreachable
-            };
+            var record = (RecordDeclarationSyntax)GetSyntax();
+            Debug.Assert(record.Kind() == SyntaxKind.RecordDeclaration || record.PrimaryConstructorBaseType is null);


|| record.PrimaryConstructorBaseType is null

We cannot make this assumption. I think we should explicitly return null for a record struct. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T14:59:36Z

src/Features/CSharp/Portable/GenerateType/CSharpGenerateTypeService.cs

@@ -671,7 +671,8 @@ internal override bool TryGetBaseList(ExpressionSyntax expression, out TypeKindO
            {
                if (node is BaseListSyntax)
                {
-                    if (node.Parent is InterfaceDeclarationSyntax or StructDeclarationSyntax or RecordStructDeclarationSyntax)
+                    if (node.Parent is InterfaceDeclarationSyntax or StructDeclarationSyntax
+                        || node.Parent.Kind() == SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration)


Kind

I think IDE layer has a helper that checks kind agains multiple possible values. If InterfaceDeclarationSyntax and StructDeclarationSyntax can have only one kind, it might be more efficient to that helper instead. #Closed

Yes. Or just use pattern matching against the Kind() #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T15:04:31Z

Done with review pass (commit 3)

In reply to: 823349009

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T21:20:02Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Syntax/RecordDeclarationSyntax.cs

        {
            get
            {
+                if (ClassOrStructKeyword.Kind() is SyntaxKind.StructKeyword)


ClassOrStructKeyword.Kind() is SyntaxKind.StructKeyword

Kind() == SintaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration? #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T21:36:44Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Compilation/MethodBodySemanticModel.cs

@@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ internal override bool TryGetSpeculativeSemanticModelCore(SyntaxTreeSemanticMode
        {
            if (MemberSymbol is SynthesizedRecordConstructor primaryCtor &&
                primaryCtor.GetSyntax() is RecordDeclarationSyntax recordDecl &&
-                Root.FindToken(position).Parent?.AncestorsAndSelf().OfType<PrimaryConstructorBaseTypeSyntax>().FirstOrDefault() == recordDecl.PrimaryConstructorBaseType)
+                Root.FindToken(position).Parent?.AncestorsAndSelf().OfType<PrimaryConstructorBaseTypeSyntax>().FirstOrDefault() == recordDecl.PrimaryConstructorBaseTypeIfClass)


Root.FindToken(position).Parent?.AncestorsAndSelf().OfType().FirstOrDefault() == recordDecl.PrimaryConstructorBaseTypeIfClass

I am assuming this method is never called for a record struct, otherwise it should never return true, even in error scenarios. It might be worth adding an assert at the top of the method that MemberSymbol is not a primary constructor of a record struct. Also, I think we need to add a test that tries to get the speculative semantic model for a record struct at position of the first base when it has and doesn't have arguments. BTW, it looks like the is a bug, the following code compiles without any error:

public interface I1 { void M01(); } record struct R(int X) : I1(X) { void I1.M01() {} } ``` #Closed

There is also a bug for a regular record:

record R(int X) : I1() { void I1.M01() {} }

No error. #Resolved

Added test BaseArguments_Speculation. That test will reach the body of this conditional when using record instead of record struct. With record struct we don't even get to the TryGetSpeculativeSemanticModelCore method.
I think it's because of the logic in SyntaxTreeSemanticModel.GetMemberModel which handles SyntaxKind.RecordDeclaration but not SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration

In reply to: 617049655 [](ancestors = 617049655)

That matches my expectations, that is why I am suggesting to add an assert to ensure the method (not the body of the if) is not reachable for a record struct

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-20T21:40:50Z

Done with review pass (commit 6)

In reply to: 823618084

…cord-syntax

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-21T13:35:53Z

                if (typeKeyword.Kind != SyntaxKind.RecordKeyword || !haveParameters)

Not sure why this check was removed. #Closed

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Parser/LanguageParser.cs:1823 in 8618ce5. [](commit_id = 8618ce5, deletion_comment = True)

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-21T13:49:12Z

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

+            void checkPrimaryConstructorBaseType(BaseTypeSyntax baseTypeSyntax, TypeSymbol baseType)
+            {
+                if (baseTypeSyntax is PrimaryConstructorBaseTypeSyntax primaryConstructorBaseType &&
+                    (!IsRecord || TypeKind == TypeKind.Struct || baseType.TypeKind == TypeKind.Interface || ((RecordDeclarationSyntax)decl.SyntaxReference.GetSyntax()).ParameterList is null))


TypeKind == TypeKind.Struct || baseType.TypeKind == TypeKind.Interface

TypeKind != TypeKind.Class || baseType.TypeKind != TypeKind.Class? Only base class can have arguments. #Closed

For the first part: != Class and == Struct are equivalent since we're dealing with a record (IsRecord check earlier on the line).
For the second part, the reason I checked for interface is because the other scenarios all already have errors (see below). #Resolved

For the first part: != Class and == Struct are equivalent since we're dealing with a record (IsRecord check earlier on the line).
For the second part, the reason I checked for interface is because the other scenarios all already have errors (see below).

It always more robust to not depend on other conditions and checking for what is required for the "good" state rather than trying to cover other possible "bad" states. The arguments are allowed for classes on base classes. I believe that the condition should be coded in these terms, rather than trying to cover what else might be there based on some previos conditions. #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-21T14:02:35Z

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

@@ -500,6 +501,8 @@ private static BaseListSyntax GetBaseListOpt(SingleTypeDeclaration decl)
                    baseType = baseBinder.BindType(typeSyntax, diagnostics, newBasesBeingResolved).Type;
                }

+                checkPrimaryConstructorBaseType(baseTypeSyntax, baseType);


checkPrimaryConstructorBaseType

It is probably not worth running this check past the first item, or we should complain unconditionally (only the first item in the list is allowed to have arguments). #Closed

The parser only produces a PrimaryConstructorBaseType for the first element, so this check bails out on subsequent items already. I'm not sure what you're proposing. #Resolved

Added a check, but seems redundant to me...

Added a check, but seems redundant to me...

I don't think it is redundant because we are not always dealing with trees from the parser. #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-21T14:16:15Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Syntax/Parsing/RecordParsing.cs

@@ -2224,11 +2224,7 @@ class C(int X, int Y)

            if (!withParameters && withBaseArguments)


if (!withParameters && withBaseArguments)

Conditional logic is no longer necessary #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-21T14:22:59Z

Done with review pass (commit 8)

AlekseyTs · 2021-04-21T21:25:49Z

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

+record struct R1(int X) : Error(0, 1)
+{
+}
+record struct R2(int X) : Error()


We should also try to speculate on that case without the argument list. #Closed

Perhaps on position in the middle of the base type name

AlekseyTs

LGTM (commit 13)

jcouv added Area-Compilers New Language Feature - Records Records labels Apr 17, 2021

jcouv self-assigned this Apr 17, 2021

jcouv force-pushed the record-syntax branch from 424fdbf to e23e3e9 Compare April 17, 2021 20:02

jcouv added this to the C# 10 milestone Apr 17, 2021

Record-structs: remove RecordStructDeclarationSyntax

545a25e

jcouv force-pushed the record-syntax branch from e23e3e9 to 545a25e Compare April 17, 2021 20:08

Youssef1313 mentioned this pull request Apr 17, 2021

Support record structs in complete statement command #52697

Merged

CyrusNajmabadi reviewed Apr 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

CyrusNajmabadi approved these changes Apr 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

jcouv marked this pull request as ready for review April 18, 2021 00:37

jcouv requested review from a team as code owners April 18, 2021 00:37

Address feedback

d659903

RikkiGibson approved these changes Apr 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

davidwengier approved these changes Apr 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

alrz reviewed Apr 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

Youssef1313 reviewed Apr 18, 2021

View reviewed changes

...ted/CSharpSyntaxGenerator/CSharpSyntaxGenerator.SourceGenerator/Syntax.xml.Main.Generated.cs Show resolved Hide resolved

Use StructKeyword

9c48dd6

jcouv added the Area-IDE label Apr 19, 2021

jcouv requested review from AlekseyTs and a team April 19, 2021 19:10

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

jcouv added 2 commits April 20, 2021 12:18

Address feedback

1c89f88

Further simplifications

3ef4083

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

tweak

8618ce5

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

RikkiGibson mentioned this pull request Apr 20, 2021

Add a Deconstruct method for syntax nodes #52784

Open

jcouv added 2 commits April 20, 2021 21:18

Fix bug with parameter lists on implemented interface

f897772

Merge remote-tracking branch 'dotnet/features/record-structs' into re…

e03625c

…cord-syntax

jcouv requested a review from AlekseyTs April 21, 2021 06:21

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 21, 2021

View reviewed changes

jcouv added 4 commits April 21, 2021 09:29

test cleanup

02326be

Add extra check for first item

778b843

nit

57bb245

More tests

f4c4d0c

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 21, 2021

View reviewed changes

Add assertion and speculation on SimpleBaseType

5c551d2

AlekseyTs approved these changes Apr 22, 2021

View reviewed changes

jcouv merged commit a657570 into dotnet:features/record-structs Apr 22, 2021

jcouv deleted the record-syntax branch April 22, 2021 04:20

		Debug.Assert(builder.RecordDeclarationWithParameters is RecordDeclarationSyntax { ParameterList: not null } record
		&& record.Kind() == SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration);

	\|\| node.Parent.Kind() == SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration)
	\|\| node.Parent.IsKind(SyntaxKind.RecordStructDeclaration))

		@@ -2224,11 +2224,7 @@ class C(int X, int Y)

		if (!withParameters && withBaseArguments)

Record-structs: remove RecordStructDeclarationSyntax #52702

Record-structs: remove RecordStructDeclarationSyntax #52702

Conversation

jcouv commented Apr 17, 2021

CyrusNajmabadi commented Apr 17, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

jcouv commented Apr 17, 2021 • edited Loading

CyrusNajmabadi Apr 18, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Apr 18, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Apr 18, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidwengier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

davidwengier Apr 18, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Youssef1313 Apr 18, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Apr 19, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alrz Apr 18, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RikkiGibson Apr 18, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Youssef1313 Apr 18, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Apr 20, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Apr 20, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Apr 20, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs commented Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi Apr 20, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs commented Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Apr 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs commented Apr 20, 2021 • edited Loading

AlekseyTs commented Apr 21, 2021 • edited Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Apr 21, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Apr 21, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv Apr 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 • edited by jcouv Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

CyrusNajmabadi commented Apr 17, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

jcouv commented Apr 17, 2021 •

edited

Loading

CyrusNajmabadi Apr 18, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

CyrusNajmabadi Apr 18, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

CyrusNajmabadi Apr 18, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

davidwengier Apr 18, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

Youssef1313 Apr 18, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

jcouv Apr 19, 2021 •

edited

Loading

alrz Apr 18, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Youssef1313 Apr 18, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

CyrusNajmabadi Apr 20, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 20, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Apr 20, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Apr 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Apr 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Apr 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 21, 2021 •

edited

Loading