Add parser tests part 1 #49

mmulholla · 2020-12-14T20:17:00Z

What does this PR do?

Adds tests which use the parser api to verify, create. and edit valid devfile.yaml files.

Current support :
Commands: Exec and Composite
Components: Container and Volume

What issues does this PR fix or reference?

devfile/api#215

Is your PR tested? Consider putting some instruction how to test your changes

Yes. Readme includes instruction for how to modify tests

maysunfaisal · 2020-12-16T16:23:37Z

@mmulholla make a temp commit and print git status -s in the CI workflow to see what files are in the git status thats causing it to fail

mmulholla · 2020-12-16T21:45:21Z

I added a change to the build order to enable the build to pass. go fmt was failing because the pull request was running go tests and then checking go fmt. The go test creates a tmp directory which it leaves populated, then go fmt throws an error because of the tmp directory existing. I changed the build order so it checks format and then runs the tests and the build then passes.

I also tweeked build output after running go fmt to output the error message from go fmt - without thus i would never have found this issue!!

yangcao77 · 2020-12-21T15:58:58Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+    * Parser functions covered:
+        * Read an existing devfile.
+        * Write a new devfile.
+        * Modify Content of a devfile.


Suggested change

* Modify Content of a devfile.

* Modify content of a devfile.

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T20:25:22Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+    * Composite
+* Components 
+    * Container
+    * Volume


since #48 has been merged, plugin component with uri defined is also supported

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T20:28:09Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+1. Go to directory tests/src/tests
+1. Run ```go test``` or ```go test -v```
+1. The test creates the following files: 
+    1. ```./tmp/test.log``` contains log output from the tests.


the tmp folder should be added in gitignore

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:11:57Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+
+* Each devfile is created in a schema structure.
+* Which attributes are set and the values used are randomized.
+* Once the schema structure is complete it is written in one of two ways.


why? explain in which situation each is being picked to used?

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:38:01Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+        * ```func create<command-type>Command() *schema.<command-type>```
+            * creates the command object and calls ```set<command-type>CommandValues``` to add attribute values
+            * for example see: ```func createExecCommand(execCommand *schema.ExecCommand)```
+        * ```func set<command-type>CommandValues(project-sourceProject *schema.<project-source>)```


suggest to switch order of set<command-type>CommandValues and create<command-type>Command()
should explain it before reference it

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:39:33Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+            * main entry point for a test to add a command
+            * maintains the array of commands in the schema structure
+            * calls generateCommand() 
+        * ```func generateCommand(command *schema.Command, genericCommand *GenericCommand)```


same here, suggest to explain generateCommand before reference it under addCommand

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:40:59Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+        * ```func (devfile *TestDevfile) UpdateCommand(command *schema.Command) error```
+            * includes logic to call set<commad-type>CommandValues for each commandType.
+        * ```func (devfile TestDevfile) VerifyCommands(parserCommands []schema.Command) error```
+            * Includes logic to compare the array of commands obtained from the parser with those created by the test. if the compare fails:


be consistent

Suggested change

* Includes logic to compare the array of commands obtained from the parser with those created by the test. if the compare fails:

* includes logic to compare the array of commands obtained from the parser with those created by the test. If the compare fails:

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:42:35Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+        * Includes code to get object from the paser and verify their content.
+        * For commands code is required to: 
+            1. Retrieve each command from the parser
+            1. Use command id to obtain the GenericCommand object which matches


since defined as Id in schema

Suggested change

1. Use command id to obtain the GenericCommand object which matches

1. Use command Id to obtain the GenericCommand object which matches

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:44:03Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+        * For commands code is required to: 
+            1. Retrieve each command from the parser
+            1. Use command id to obtain the GenericCommand object which matches
+            1. compare the command structure returned by the parser with the command structure saved in the GenericCommand object.


To be consistent

Suggested change

1. compare the command structure returned by the parser with the command structure saved in the GenericCommand object.

1. Compare the command structure returned by the parser with the command structure saved in the GenericCommand object.

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:45:03Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+    * ```func (devfile TestDevfile) EditCommands() error```
+        * Specific to command objects.
+            1. Ensure devfile is written to disk
+            1. use parser to read devfile and get all command object


Suggested change

1. use parser to read devfile and get all command object

1. Use parser to read devfile and get all command object

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:45:26Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+            1. use parser to read devfile and get all command object
+            1.  for each command call:
+                *  ```func (devfile *TestDevfile) UpdateCommand(command *schema.Command) error``` 
+            1. when all commands have been updated, use parser to write the updated devfile to disk


Suggested change

1. when all commands have been updated, use parser to write the updated devfile to disk

1. When all commands have been updated, use parser to write the updated devfile to disk

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:45:39Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+        * Specific to command objects.
+            1. Ensure devfile is written to disk
+            1. use parser to read devfile and get all command object
+            1.  for each command call:


Suggested change

1. for each command call:

1. For each command call:

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:47:45Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+    * See also
+        *```func Test_<string>ExecCommand(t *testing.T)``` 
+        *```func Test_MultiCommand(t *testing.T)```
+        *```func Test_Everything(t *testing.T)```


Need space after *

Suggested change

*```func Test_Everything(t *testing.T)```

* ```func Test_<string>ExecCommand(t *testing.T)```

* ```func Test_MultiCommand(t *testing.T)```

* ```func Test_Everything(t *testing.T)```

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:49:31Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+        *```func Test_<string>ExecCommand(t *testing.T)``` 
+        *```func Test_MultiCommand(t *testing.T)```
+        *```func Test_Everything(t *testing.T)```
+    * add logic to ```func runTest(testContent TestContent, t *testing.T)``` includes logic


Suggested change

* add logic to ```func runTest(testContent TestContent, t *testing.T)``` includes logic

* Adds logic to ```func runTest(testContent TestContent, t *testing.T)``` which includes logic

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:49:42Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+        *```func Test_MultiCommand(t *testing.T)```
+        *```func Test_Everything(t *testing.T)```
+    * add logic to ```func runTest(testContent TestContent, t *testing.T)``` includes logic
+        1. Add commands to the test


Suggested change

1. Add commands to the test

1. Adds commands to the test

yangcao77 · 2020-12-24T22:51:57Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+        1. command-test-utils.AddCommand
+            1. command-test-utils.GenerateCommand
+                1.  command-test-utils.createExecCommand
+                    1. command-test-utils.setExecCommandValues


check the indentation, otherwise the format will be incorrect.
same as below

Suggested change

1. command-test-utils.setExecCommandValues

1. command-test-utils.AddCommand

1. command-test-utils.GenerateCommand

1. command-test-utils.createExecCommand

1. command-test-utils.setExecCommandValues

mmulholla · 2021-01-04T18:27:52Z

@yangcao77 Thank you for your comments, I have addressed each of them except:

"since #48 has been merged, plugin component with uri defined is also supported"

the section is about what is supported in the test which does not include that function yet.

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T18:39:15Z

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

+	return GetRandomDecision(1, 1)
+}
+
+func GetRandomDecision(success int, failure int) bool {


how does this function works? why expect an int value for success and failure?
Besides, I would like to suggest having a simple comment for every function you added

There are a lots of functions without comments. Is it OK if I add these in a subsequent pull request? The tests are working and would like to get them merged - this is only part 1.

Have now added simple comments to all functions

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T21:00:45Z

tests/src/tests/component_test_utils.go

+	if GetBinaryDecision() {
+		containerComponent.VolumeMounts = AddVolume(GetRandomNumber(4))
+	} else {
+		containerComponent.Env = nil


should be VolumeMounts?

if it's nil, you can just leave it empty instead of setting it as nil. same as above

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T21:23:04Z

tests/src/tests/component_test_utils.go

+	LogMessage("Enter VerifyComponents")
+	errorString := ""
+
+	// Compare entire array of commands


components*

tests/src/tests/component_test_utils.go

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T21:29:33Z

tests/src/tests/endpoint-test-utils.go

+	return Exposures[GetRandomNumber(len(Exposures))-1]
+}
+
+var Protocols = [...]schema.EndpointProtocol{schema.HTTPEndpointProtocol, schema.WSEndpointProtocol, schema.TCPEndpointProtocol, schema.UDPEndpointProtocol}


should wss and https be included as well?

At the time of writing the tests the parser was not using the schema with this update. If it is now I can extend the test.

yes, it's been merged in api repo as a part of devfile/api#268

I tried and the tests failed, will enable later.

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T21:39:01Z

tests/src/tests/command_test_utils.go

+		}
+		devfile.replaceSchemaCommand(*parserCommand)
+	} else {
+		errorString += LogMessage(fmt.Sprintf(" ....... Command not found in test : %s", parserCommand.Id))


I would prefer to have errorString with type []string
and do errorString= append(errorString, errorMessage) instead of using +=

Sure append is new to me :-), but another I would like to keep for part 2.

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T21:44:02Z

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

+
+func GetGroupKinds() []schema.CommandGroupKind {
+	setRandSeed()
+	return []schema.CommandGroupKind{schema.BuildCommandGroupKind, schema.RunCommandGroupKind, schema.TestCommandGroupKind, schema.DebugCommandGroupKind}


this is a constant slice, no need to setRandSeed. and no need a separate function for the group kinds
suggest to have the slice defined at top of the file, as you've done for protocol and exposure in endpoints

Yes, I created endpoint later than components - maybe my go skills were increasing :-)

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T21:49:39Z

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

+	testDevfile := TestDevfile{}
+	testDevfile.SchemaDevFile = schema.Devfile{}
+	testDevfile.FileName = fileName
+	testDevfile.SchemaDevFile.SchemaVersion = "2.0.0"


Just want to point out that I have seen this schema version is hard coded to 2.0.0, and the tests are relying on devfile structs defined in api repo(schema). However, the parser repo is going to support multiple schema versions, not only V2, but also future versions.
I know this is the first PR (part1) for the test, we might also want to start considering how the test structure is going to be for future schema versions, i.e. which parts can be commonly used, and which parts are version specific.

Yes, that is on my to do list, not sure yet how to best do it.

I honestly think we should do that before merging this PR. Once this merged, we will keep adding tests and before we know it, it will be a lot of updates and refactoring to accommodate future version schema changes.

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T21:52:59Z

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

+				}
+				err = devObj.WriteYamlDevfile()
+				if err != nil {
+					LogMessage(fmt.Sprintf(" ..... ERROR: wriring devfile : %v", err))


again, I saw the formats for log messages are inconsistent.
here is ..... ERROR: for error messages, and above are using --> ERROR
and I saw some messages are with 5 dots, and some are with 6 dots, and with/without spaces in between.

this is due to the log format is manually input for every message, and which is something we want to avoid

Yes, that will help with consistency, part 2? :-)

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T21:54:23Z

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

+		if commands != nil && len(commands) > 0 {
+			err = devfile.VerifyCommands(commands)
+		} else {
+			LogMessage(fmt.Sprintf("  No command found in %s : ", devfile.FileName))


Suggested change

LogMessage(fmt.Sprintf(" No command found in %s : ", devfile.FileName))

LogMessage(fmt.Sprintf(" No commands found in %s : ", devfile.FileName))

lol, the patent attorney in me says that "command" is more accurate.

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T22:00:46Z

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

+
+			err = ctx.SetAbsPath()
+			if err != nil {
+				LogMessage(fmt.Sprintf(" ..... ERROR: setting devfile path : %v", err))


should return err if it's not nil.
same for other error checks

The code in this case does return err. One of my ingrained code styles is single entry single exit.

yangcao77 · 2021-01-04T22:02:11Z

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

+		LogMessage(fmt.Sprintf("   .......marshall and write devfile %s", devfile.FileName))
+		c, err := yaml.Marshal(&(devfile.SchemaDevFile))
+
+		if err == nil {


IMO, we should check err!= nil, and return err.
same for other error checks

Same here, it does get returned but only at the end. - single entry single exit

Changed all err ==nil to err != nil to hopefully look less weird, but I keep a single exit point.

mmulholla · 2021-01-05T22:21:01Z

@yangcao77 I have hopefully addressed all of your comments to your satisfaction. Also thanks again for the thorough review and teaching me about append.

maysunfaisal

Some review comments

Can we also update the path tests/src/tests?

Dockerfiles can be in tests/examples/dockerfiles
tests code themselves can in tests/<test type like integration/e2e> & tests/utils
Readme can in tests/

maysunfaisal · 2021-01-05T20:36:51Z

tests/src/tests/README.md

+
+The tests use the go language and are intended to test every apsect of the parser for every schema attribute. Some basic aspects of the tests:
+
+* A first test (parser_v200_schema_test.go) feeds pre-created devfiles to the parser to ensure the parser can parse all attribues and return an approproate error when the devfile contains an error.


No file with this name

attribues, approproate typo

Added a note to say the test was not available yet - needs updating as a result of schema changes

If its not there, should we really merge this information? Dont want others to be confused whoever is reading it

maysunfaisal · 2021-01-05T20:46:51Z

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

+const tmpDir = "./tmp/"
+const logErrorOnly = false
+const logFileName = "test.log"
+const logToFileOnly = true // If set to false the log output will also be output to the console


Suggested change

const tmpDir = "./tmp/"

const logErrorOnly = false

const logFileName = "test.log"

const logToFileOnly = true // If set to false the log output will also be output to the console

const (

tmpDir = "./tmp/"

logErrorOnly = false

logFileName = "test.log"

// logToFileOnly if set to false the log output will also be output to the console

logToFileOnly = true

)

is cleaner way to define multiple consts, golang also puts the comment before the variable/const so that it can be viewed by any IDE navigation. Similar for the other files declaring consts

Also perhaps maybe we can customize settings like logToFileOnly using some sort of ENV rather than changing code constants and it gives a greater flexibility with the default being true

Changed the constant format.
Customizing the settings is using ENV or similar is for the future.

tests/src/tests/command_test_utils.go

maysunfaisal

Think test devfile logic can be cleaned up more. There are a few redundant codes in tests.

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

maysunfaisal · 2021-01-06T16:35:17Z

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

+}
+
+type TestDevfile struct {
+	SchemaDevFile   schema.Devfile


can we rename this to something else? Its very confusing to read TestDevfile.SchemaDevFile. Maybe Data or Contents sounds ok?

I honestly cannot think of a more descriptive name - going to punt on this one.

tests/src/tests/test_utils.go

maysunfaisal · 2021-01-06T16:53:31Z

tests/src/tests/command_test_utils.go

+func (devfile *TestDevfile) UpdateCommand(parserCommand *schema.Command) error {
+
+	var errorString []string
+	testCommand, found := getSchemaCommand(devfile.SchemaDevFile.Commands, parserCommand.Id)


why are we doing this? You already have the command that you passed in to this function - parserCommand. The getSchemaCommand() basically loops thru all the commands and matches the id and returns the same command back..

So here I am testing the paser api used to modify existing devfile conent. So first I create the schema structure as reference devfile content. Write that to disk, have the parser read it and then start updating. For updating I update the reference structure, use parser api to make the same update, get the full devfile back and make sure the updates are reflected. Probably need to get some invalid updates going here to that is for the future.

I get what you mean, but you are not doing anything with the testCommand in this func:

var err error testCommand, found := getSchemaCommand(devfile.SchemaDevFile.Commands, parserCommand.Id) if found { LogInfoMessage(fmt.Sprintf("Updating command id: %s", parserCommand.Id)) if testCommand.Exec != nil { setExecCommandValues(parserCommand.Exec) } else if testCommand.Composite != nil { setCompositeCommandValues(parserCommand.Composite) } devfile.replaceSchemaCommand(*parserCommand) } else { err = errors.New(LogErrorMessage(fmt.Sprintf("Command not found in test : %s", parserCommand.Id))) } return err

testCommand is used in the if and else statements. The logic is basically

Use the id from the command returned by the parser to find the equivalent command in the test.
2: if it is found:
a. check the type of the command recorded in the test and set appropriate update values in the command returned by the parser
b. replace the command stored in the test with the new version to be given to the parser.

If it is not found we have a problem.

on return the parser api is use to write the updated parser command.

I could do this any number of ways but the outcome needs to be the same.

tests/src/tests/command_test_utils.go

maysunfaisal · 2021-01-06T16:59:03Z

tests/src/tests/command_test_utils.go

+func (devfile TestDevfile) replaceSchemaCommand(command schema.Command) {
+	for i := 0; i < len(devfile.SchemaDevFile.Commands); i++ {
+		if devfile.SchemaDevFile.Commands[i].Id == command.Id {
+			devfile.SchemaDevFile.Commands[i] = command
+			break
+		}
+	}
+}


I think if we clean up the test devfile structs like I mentioned earlier you can use the parser's updateCommand() func. This is basically duplicating effort and having two copies of the same thing - one in test and one in parser

Yes, just the way the test work, maintain a reference of devfile content to compare with what the parser returns.

mmulholla · 2021-01-07T15:05:32Z

Guys, thank you for the thorough reviews. I have hopefully responded to all of your comments and addressed most of them.
Please now approve. This is a first pass at adding some parser api tests, at this stage they don't need to be perfect (if tests ever need to be perfect) and they are a work in progress. I know there is a bunch of stuff that is not complete, there are better ways of doing some things, and they are still just touching a tiny percentage of the api, but it is a starting point and an important one. The tests also work.

mmulholla · 2021-01-07T18:51:56Z

@maysunfaisal @yangcao77 Are you OK to approve now?

maysunfaisal

Few other minor nits and comments

tests/utils/test_utils.go

tests/utils/project_test_utils.go

tests/utils/test_utils.go

maysunfaisal · 2021-01-08T19:13:52Z

tests/utils/endpoint-test-utils.go

+	return Exposures[GetRandomNumber(len(Exposures))-1]
+}
+
+//var Protocols = [...]schema.EndpointProtocol{schema.HTTPEndpointProtocol, schema.HTTPSEndpointProtocol, schema.WSEndpointProtocol, schema.WSSEndpointProtocol, schema.TCPEndpointProtocol, schema.UDPEndpointProtocol}


remove comment

It is a place holder for when I can run against the latest schema, at which point it will be uncomented.

tests/utils/command_test_utils.go

tests/utils/component_test_utils.go

tests/utils/test_utils.go

tests/utils/command_test_utils.go

tests/utils/component_test_utils.go

mmulholla · 2021-01-11T16:27:57Z

@maysunfaisal - all done now?

maysunfaisal

/lgtm

openshift-ci-robot · 2021-01-11T16:58:59Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: maysunfaisal, mmulholla

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [maysunfaisal]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

openshift-ci-robot requested review from maysunfaisal and yangcao77 December 14, 2020 20:17

yangcao77 reviewed Dec 21, 2020

View reviewed changes

yangcao77 reviewed Dec 24, 2020

View reviewed changes

mmulholl added 4 commits January 4, 2021 09:57

Add parser tests part 1

266ed4b

go.sum update

6e3def7

output gofmt error

8499002

output gofmt error

04669ad

mmulholla force-pushed the AddParserVerifyTestsPart1 branch 2 times, most recently from eecdda8 to 1eb906b Compare January 4, 2021 18:10

Address pull request comments

c9ea73a

mmulholla force-pushed the AddParserVerifyTestsPart1 branch from 1eb906b to c9ea73a Compare January 4, 2021 18:22

yangcao77 reviewed Jan 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

tests/src/tests/component_test_utils.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

yangcao77 reviewed Jan 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

Address 2nd set of code review comments

ad9fecd

maysunfaisal requested changes Jan 5, 2021

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci-robot assigned maysunfaisal Jan 5, 2021

maysunfaisal requested changes Jan 6, 2021

View reviewed changes

Address Maysun comments

0010b5f

mmulholla force-pushed the AddParserVerifyTestsPart1 branch from 9b1f8f7 to 0010b5f Compare January 7, 2021 14:33

maysunfaisal requested changes Jan 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

mmulholla force-pushed the AddParserVerifyTestsPart1 branch from 2cecc05 to 603f8e3 Compare January 11, 2021 16:07

Address more comments

d2d24b3

mmulholla force-pushed the AddParserVerifyTestsPart1 branch from 603f8e3 to d2d24b3 Compare January 11, 2021 16:12

maysunfaisal approved these changes Jan 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm label Jan 11, 2021

openshift-ci-robot added the approved label Jan 11, 2021

mmulholla merged commit b2b6e1a into devfile:master Jan 11, 2021

	* Modify Content of a devfile.
	* Modify content of a devfile.

	* Includes logic to compare the array of commands obtained from the parser with those created by the test. if the compare fails:
	* includes logic to compare the array of commands obtained from the parser with those created by the test. If the compare fails:

	1. Use command id to obtain the GenericCommand object which matches
	1. Use command Id to obtain the GenericCommand object which matches

	1. compare the command structure returned by the parser with the command structure saved in the GenericCommand object.
	1. Compare the command structure returned by the parser with the command structure saved in the GenericCommand object.

	1. use parser to read devfile and get all command object
	1. Use parser to read devfile and get all command object

	1. when all commands have been updated, use parser to write the updated devfile to disk
	1. When all commands have been updated, use parser to write the updated devfile to disk

-        *```func Test_Everything(t *testing.T)```
+        * ```func Test_<string>ExecCommand(t *testing.T)```
+        * ```func Test_MultiCommand(t *testing.T)```
+        * ```func Test_Everything(t *testing.T)```

	* add logic to ```func runTest(testContent TestContent, t *testing.T)``` includes logic
	* Adds logic to ```func runTest(testContent TestContent, t *testing.T)``` which includes logic

	LogMessage(fmt.Sprintf(" No command found in %s : ", devfile.FileName))
	LogMessage(fmt.Sprintf(" No commands found in %s : ", devfile.FileName))


		The tests use the go language and are intended to test every apsect of the parser for every schema attribute. Some basic aspects of the tests:

		* A first test (parser_v200_schema_test.go) feeds pre-created devfiles to the parser to ensure the parser can parse all attribues and return an approproate error when the devfile contains an error.

Add parser tests part 1 #49

Add parser tests part 1 #49

Conversation

mmulholla commented Dec 14, 2020

What does this PR do?

What issues does this PR fix or reference?

Is your PR tested? Consider putting some instruction how to test your changes

maysunfaisal commented Dec 16, 2020

mmulholla commented Dec 16, 2020

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

yangcao77 Dec 24, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mmulholla commented Jan 4, 2021

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

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

mmulholla Jan 4, 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

mmulholla commented Jan 5, 2021

maysunfaisal 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

maysunfaisal left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mmulholla Jan 7, 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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yangcao77 Dec 24, 2020 •

edited

Loading

mmulholla Jan 4, 2021 •

edited

Loading

maysunfaisal left a comment •

edited

Loading

mmulholla Jan 7, 2021 •

edited

Loading