Add support for derived type constraint annotation by KanishManuja-MS · Pull Request #1977 · OData/WebApi

KanishManuja-MS · 2019-12-09T22:30:52Z

Issues

This pull request enables support for derived type constraint annotation.

Description

Non-convention model builder now has APIs and thus support for adding out of line annotations for derived type constraint.

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

Test cases added
Build and test with one-click build and test script passed

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:13:49Z

+        /// </summary>
+        public ActionConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraint<TSubClass>() where TSubClass : class
+        {
+            base.AddDerivedTypeConstraintToReturnTypeImplementation(typeof(TSubClass));


base [](start = 12, length = 4)

"base. " is unnecessary? #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:14:35Z

+        /// </summary>
+        public CollectionPropertyConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraint<TSubClass>() where TSubClass : class
+        {
+            this.AddDerivedTypeConstraintImpl(typeof(TSubClass));


this [](start = 12, length = 4)

"this." is unnecessary? #Resolved

same for others

In reply to: 358414860 [](ancestors = 358414860)

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:18:33Z

+        /// <summary>
+        /// Adds TSubClass to the list of derived type constraints.
+        /// </summary>
+        public SingletonConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraint<TSubClass>() where TSubClass : class


AddDerivedTypeConstraint() [](start = 38, length = 37)

AddDerivedTypeConstraint() [](start = 38, length = 37)

For design perspective, add a non-generic method to support adding TypeConstraint.

Call the non-generic method in the generic method. #Resolved

Same for others.

In reply to: 358416790 [](ancestors = 358416790)

somthing likes public SingletonConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraint(params Type type) {}

In reply to: 358416861 [](ancestors = 358416861,358416790)

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:22:31Z

Add the non-generic mothed to support runtime configuration.
Call non-generic method in your generic method
Where's conventional model build supporting?
Add the E2E test cases to verify the type constraint working, includes but not limits
a) to verify ODL throw correct exception for non-supported type cast
b) to verify the ODL throw correct exception for non-supported instance serialization #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:23:01Z

        private readonly Dictionary<PropertyInfo, IEdmProperty> _properties = new Dictionary<PropertyInfo, IEdmProperty>();
        private readonly Dictionary<IEdmProperty, QueryableRestrictions> _propertiesRestrictions = new Dictionary<IEdmProperty, QueryableRestrictions>();
        private readonly Dictionary<IEdmProperty, ModelBoundQuerySettings> _propertiesQuerySettings = new Dictionary<IEdmProperty, ModelBoundQuerySettings>();
+        private readonly Dictionary<IEdmProperty, PropertyConfiguration> _propertyConfigurations = new Dictionary<IEdmProperty, PropertyConfiguration>();


_propertyConfigurations [](start = 73, length = 23)

We can't use the "_properties" field? #Resolved

We need PropertyConfiguration. _properties does not have any configuration.

In reply to: 358418941 [](ancestors = 358418941)

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:25:19Z

+            if (types.Count == 0)
+            {
+                return;
+            }


switch line 689 and ling 690 #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:25:59Z

+                }
+                else
+                {
+                    throw Error.InvalidOperation("Cannot find EdmType corresponding to {0}", type);


Cannot find EdmType corresponding to {0} [](start = 50, length = 40)

use the SRSources for the error message? #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:26:22Z

+                return;
+            }
+
+            List<EdmStringConstant> collectionConstants = new List<EdmStringConstant>();


List collectionConstants = new List(); [](start = 12, length = 76)

shall we make sure no duplicated existed? #Resolved

We do that through the ISet. At this point in time, there should be no duplicates.

In reply to: 358420621 [](ancestors = 358420621)

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:27:35Z

+using System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis;
+using System.Diagnostics.Contracts;
+using System.Linq;
+using System.Reflection;


move System.* ahead #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:28:33Z

            _bindingParameter = new BindingParameterConfiguration(name, bindingParameterType);
        }

+        internal virtual void AddDerivedTypeConstraintToReturnTypeImplementation(Type t)


t [](start = 85, length = 2)

rename the parameter name #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:29:03Z

            _bindingParameter = new BindingParameterConfiguration(name, bindingParameterType);
        }

+        internal virtual void AddDerivedTypeConstraintToReturnTypeImplementation(Type t)


virtual [](start = 17, length = 7)

I don't think it's virtual method, right? #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:30:14Z

+        {
+            if (ReturnType.ClrType == null)
+            {
+                throw Error.InvalidOperation("No CLR Type specified for this configuration.");


No CLR Type specified for this configuration. [](start = 46, length = 45)

centralize the error messages #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:31:20Z


+        internal virtual void AddDerivedTypeConstraintToReturnTypeImplementation(Type t)
+        {
+            if (ReturnType.ClrType == null)


ReturnType [](start = 16, length = 10)

ReturnType maybe "null", right? #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:31:29Z

            _bindingParameter = new BindingParameterConfiguration(name, bindingParameterType);
        }

+        internal virtual void AddDerivedTypeConstraintToReturnTypeImplementation(Type t)


Type t [](start = 81, length = 6)

t maybe null #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:32:40Z

+
+            if (TypeConfiguration.ClrType == null)
+            {
+                throw Error.InvalidOperation("No CLR Type specified for this configuration.");


No CLR Type specified for this configuration. [](start = 46, length = 45)

centralize the error messages #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:34:08Z

+
+            DerivedTypeConstraints.Add(t);
+            return this;
+        }


It seems similar method repeated a lot, maybe consider to create a helper method #Resolved

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:36:13Z


        [Fact]
-
        public async Task VerifyMetaDataIsGeneratedCorrectly()


VerifyMetaDataIsGeneratedCorrectly() [](start = 26, length = 36)

Add test cases in "MetadataControllerTest.cs" to verify the annotation showing in the xml #Resolved

need E2E test cases to verify:

Uri parsing

Serialization

In reply to: 358425347 [](ancestors = 358425347)

xuzhg · 2019-12-16T19:38:06Z

+            }
+
+            var collectionExpression = new EdmCollectionExpression(collectionConstants);
+            EdmVocabularyAnnotation annotation = new EdmVocabularyAnnotation(target, term, collectionExpression);


EdmVocabularyAnnotation annotation = new EdmVocabularyAnnotation(target, term, collectionExpression); [](start = 12, length = 101)

Discussion: Maybe need configuration to set the annotation location (Inline or outofLine) #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-01-02T18:58:45Z

        public QueryConfiguration QueryConfiguration { get; set; }

+        /// <summary>
+        /// Adds TSubClass to the list of derived type constraints.


TSubClass [](start = 17, length = 9)

TSubClass [](start = 17, length = 9)

resentence the comments #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-01-02T18:59:34Z

+        /// </summary>
+        internal PropertyConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraintImpl(Type t)
+        {
+            if (RelatedClrType == null)


RelatedClrType [](start = 16, length = 14)

why do we test this? It should be tested on the constructor, right? #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-01-02T18:59:57Z

+        {
+            if (RelatedClrType == null)
+            {
+                throw Error.InvalidOperation("No CLR Type specified for this configuration.");


No CLR Type specified for this configuration. [](start = 46, length = 45)

add the errors into resource manage #Resolved

same for other

In reply to: 362588158 [](ancestors = 362588158)

xuzhg · 2020-01-02T19:01:32Z

+        /// <summary>
+        /// Adds TSubClass to the list of derived type constraints.
+        /// </summary>
+        internal PropertyConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraintImpl(Type t)


t [](start = 73, length = 1)

rename the parameter name #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-01-02T19:02:51Z

+        /// </summary>
+        public SingletonConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraint<TSubClass>() where TSubClass : class
+        {
+            this.AddDerivedTypeConstraintImpl(typeof(TSubClass));


this. [](start = 12, length = 5)

don't need "this." #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-01-02T19:21:54Z

+        /// </summary>
+        internal void AddDerivedTypeConstraintImpl(Type t)
+        {
+            if (ClrType == null)


if (ClrType == null) [](start = 12, length = 20)

we don't need to test this, right?
It's verify at the constuctor #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-01-02T19:22:08Z

+        /// </summary>
+        public NavigationPropertyConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraint<TSubClass>() where TSubClass : class
+        {
+            this.AddDerivedTypeConstraintImpl(typeof(TSubClass));


remove "this." #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-01-02T19:22:41Z

+        /// <summary>
+        /// Adds TSubClass to the list of derived type constraints.
+        /// </summary>
+        public EnumPropertyConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraint<TSubClass>() where TSubClass : class


EnumPropertyConfiguration [](start = 15, length = 25)

do we have the enum property derived type scenario? #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-01-02T19:22:57Z

+        /// </summary>
+        public EntitySetConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraint<TSubClass>() where TSubClass : class
+        {
+            this.AddDerivedTypeConstraintImpl(typeof(TSubClass));


this. [](start = 12, length = 5)

remove this. #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-01-02T19:24:32Z

+        /// </summary>
+        public ComplexPropertyConfiguration AddDerivedTypeConstraint<TSubClass>() where TSubClass : class
+        {
+            this.AddDerivedTypeConstraintImpl(typeof(TSubClass));


this. [](start = 12, length = 5)

remove this. #Resolved

xuzhg

🕐

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:05:28Z

+        public DerivedTypeConstraintSet(Type baseType)
+            : base()
+        {
+            ClrBaseType = baseType;


ClrBaseType = baseType; [](start = 12, length = 23)

no config for the Location? #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:05:52Z

+        /// <summary>
+        /// Initializes a DerivedTypeConstraintSet instance without setting a base type.
+        /// </summary>
+        public DerivedTypeConstraintSet()


DerivedTypeConstraintSet [](start = 15, length = 24)

maybe call other ctor with arguments #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:06:14Z

+        public DerivedTypeConstraintSet(Type baseType)
+            : base()
+        {
+            ClrBaseType = baseType;


ClrBaseType = baseType; [](start = 12, length = 23)

check the baseType nullable?

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:08:03Z

+            {
+                ValidateAndAddSingleConstraint(ClrBaseType);
+                return;
+            }


if the input is empty, add the ClrBaseType ? Why don't we have this strange logic?

I had two options; One was to throw an error and the other was to consider that as an indication to allow only base types. Consider that this is called from HasDerivedTypeConstraints(). What should be the behavior?

In reply to: 394506704 [](ancestors = 394506704)

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:10:40Z

+            if (ClrBaseType == null)
+            {
+                throw Error.InvalidOperation(SRResources.NoClrTypeSpecified);
+            }


A DerivedTypeConstraintSet should have a ClrBaseType configuired already, why should we check this? #ByDesign

An operation can be created without a ClrBaseType. Think about actions with no return type. #ByDesign

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:12:58Z

+                throw Error.InvalidOperation(SRResources.ConstraintAlreadyExists, typeToAdd.Name);
+            }
+        }
+    }


I'd like to copy/paste my assumption:
I don't want to use my name, but, for the "Add" logic, we can make it simple as blow

/// <summary> /// /// </summary> public class DerivedTypeConstraintConfiguration { private ISet<Type> _derivedTypes; /// <summary> /// /// </summary> /// <param name="baseType"></param> public DerivedTypeConstraintConfiguration(Type baseType) { ClrBaseType = baseType; _derivedTypes = new HashSet<Type>(); Location = EdmVocabularyAnnotationSerializationLocation.OutOfLine; } /// <summary> /// /// </summary> public ISet<Type> DerivedTypes { get { return _derivedTypes; } } /// <summary> /// /// </summary> public Type ClrBaseType { get; private set; } /// <summary> /// /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="TDerived"></typeparam> public void Add<TDerived>() { Add(typeof(TDerived)); } /// <summary> /// /// </summary> public EdmVocabularyAnnotationSerializationLocation Location { get; set; } /// <summary> /// /// </summary> /// <param name="derivedType"></param> public void Add(Type derivedType) { if (derivedType == ClrBaseType) { return; } if (_derivedTypes.Contains(derivedType)) { return; } if (!ClrBaseType.IsAssignableFrom(derivedType)) { throw new Exception("blabla"); } _derivedTypes.Add(derivedType); } }

The main difference that I see is that you don't support adding enumerables. I think it makes the implementation a lot cleaner if you can add enumerables to the set.

In reply to: 394509903 [](ancestors = 394509903)

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:15:41Z

+    /// <summary>
+    /// Set of derived type constraints. 
+    /// </summary>
+    public class DerivedTypeConstraintSet : HashSet<Type>


: HashSet [](start = 42, length = 15)

I am not fan for either "derived" or "Composition"

However, i'd like to mention:

Derived "HasSet" , we can't change later for this type owing breaking changes.

Composition and make it private means we can change it any time without any breaking changes.

#Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:17:50Z

+                _returnType = value;
+                if (value != null)
+                {
+                    DerivedTypeConstraints.ClrBaseType = value.ClrType;


DerivedTypeConstraints.ClrBaseType = value.ClrType; [](start = 20, length = 51)

That's weird and change/add the configuration even no derived type configuration happens in customer scenarios

The option was to lazy initialize and save extra allocations or initialize with the constructor. Model builder not being the most performance critical piece, I decided to initialize with the constructor. Since the return type does not have to be specified in the operation configuration initialization,I need to update it for the derivedTypeConstraint whenever it gets set. Will change to lazy initialize for operations.

In reply to: 394512858 [](ancestors = 394512858)

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:20:18Z

+        /// </summary>
+        /// <param name="subtypes">The subtypes for which the constraint needs to be added.</param>
+        /// <returns>Updated configuration object.</returns>
+        public ActionConfiguration HasDerivedTypeConstraints(params Type[] subtypes)


HasDerivedTypeConstraints [](start = 35, length = 25)

I can't understand which derived constraint happens if customer call this method.

It's for the Binding type constraint, or return type constraint.

Be caution, return type and binding type could be the same type.

It is for the return type, I changed the name to be more explicit. I don't think we should give customers two ways of doing one thing. The can always do function.BindingParameter.HasDerivedTypeConstraint().

See my changes: https://github.com/OData/WebApi/blob/9c9257fd05783ae5b8ed427b9eef1848f0fa48c5/src/Microsoft.AspNet.OData.Shared/Builder/OperationConfiguration.cs

In reply to: 394514464 [](ancestors = 394514464)

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:24:37Z

+    /// <summary>
+    /// Represents an <see cref="Attribute"/> that can be placed on a property or placed on a class to specify the derived type constraints. 
+    /// </summary>
+    [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)]


[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property)] [](start = 4, length = 43)

It's only for the property, we can't put it on the class?

My assumption is like this:

[DerivedTypeConstraint(typeof(Human)] [DerivedTypeConstraint(typeof(Dog)] .... public class Creature { .... }

It support to multiple config, each for one. (I am also ok to use param[])

If you start putting it on Classes, user will expect to put constraints on entity types which we don't want to do. And Params seems cleaner.

In reply to: 394517334 [](ancestors = 394517334)

SO, we don't have the C# attribute for entity set?
can we do like this:

And a string argument into the Constructor of "DerivedTypeConstraintAttribute", use it to set the entity set or singleton or navigation property built from this type?

[DerivedTypeConstraint(typeof(Human), "Creatures"]
[DerivedTypeConstraint(typeof(Dog)]
....
public class Creature
{
....
}

In reply to: 399119699 [](ancestors = 399119699,394517334)

xuzhg · 2020-03-18T17:25:36Z

+        public DerivedTypeConstraintAttribute()
+        {
+            DerivedTypeConstraints = new HashSet<Type>();
+        }


why do we have a empty here?

Required by the compiler. Need to have at least one constructor with CLS compliant parameters for these classes.

In reply to: 394517978 [](ancestors = 394517978)

mikepizzo · 2020-03-19T22:54:56Z

+            {
+                throw Error.InvalidOperation(SRResources.NoClrTypeSpecified);
+            }
+            else if (!ClrBaseType.IsAssignableFrom(typeToAdd) && typeToAdd != ClrBaseType)


&& typeToAdd != ClrBaseType [](start = 62, length = 27)

I don't think you need this second check; if typeToAdd == ClrBaseType, then ClrBaseType.IssAssignableFrom(typeToAdd) would be true. #Resolved

xuzhg · 2020-04-01T18:08:06Z

+        /// <summary>
+        /// Initializes a DerivedTypeConstraintConfiguration instance without setting a base type.
+        /// </summary>
+        internal DerivedTypeConstraintConfiguration()


internal [](start = 8, length = 8)

why it's internal?

We don't want people to create a DerivedTypeConstraintConfiguration without a base type.

In reply to: 401810329 [](ancestors = 401810329)

xuzhg · 2020-04-01T18:13:38Z

+                ReturnTypeConstraints = new DerivedTypeConstraintConfiguration(ReturnType.ClrType);
+            }
+
+            ReturnTypeConstraints.AddConstraint<TDerivedType>();


why don't you move all these codes into base class OperationConfiguration?

To avoid the cast while using the fluent APIs. I can have an internal implementation on operation configuration but it is only 3 lines of code.

In reply to: 401813407 [](ancestors = 401813407)

xuzhg · 2020-04-01T18:13:51Z

+                ReturnTypeConstraints = new DerivedTypeConstraintConfiguration(ReturnType.ClrType);
+            }
+
+            ReturnTypeConstraints.AddConstraints(subtypes);


why don't you move all these codes into base class OperationConfiguration? #Resolved

To avoid the cast while using the fluent APIs. I can have an internal implementation on operation configuration but it is only 3 lines of code.

In reply to: 401813541 [](ancestors = 401813541)

xuzhg

🕐

mikepizzo · 2020-04-03T20:01:40Z

+        }
+
+        /// <summary>
+        /// Initializes a DerivedTypeConstraintConfiguration instance without setting a base type.


without setting a base type [](start = 70, length = 27)

copy/paste - this overload doe sspecify a base type

address pr comments update method

mikepizzo · 2020-04-08T22:37:09Z

I think we'll ultimately want to put the validation as a rule in EdmModel.Validate -- there may be scenarios where we (or the user) want to turn off this validation. But okay with it here for now, since it's internal, unless we have to make additional changes for other reasons.

mikepizzo

xuzhg · 2020-04-13T22:43:52Z

+            }
+        }
+
+        internal ISet<Type> ConstraintSet { get; }


internal ISet ConstraintSet { get; } [](start = 8, length = 42)

cannot be private?

xuzhg

* Everything except properties. Fix tests Address PR comments Remove Inline change due to a bug * Address PR comments and take sam's input parity between actions and functions self review Update tests fix final set of issues * Address PR comments address pr comments update method

KanishManuja-MS changed the title ~~Add derived type constraint~~ Add support for derived type constraint annotation Dec 9, 2019

xuzhg reviewed Dec 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

xuzhg reviewed Jan 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

xuzhg requested changes Jan 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

xuzhg reviewed Mar 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

mikepizzo reviewed Mar 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

KanishManuja-MS requested review from mikepizzo and xuzhg March 30, 2020 16:19

xuzhg reviewed Apr 1, 2020

View reviewed changes

xuzhg requested changes Apr 1, 2020

View reviewed changes

mikepizzo reviewed Apr 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

Address PR comments

9d4efb5

address pr comments update method

KanishManuja-MS force-pushed the Add-derived-type-constraint branch from 6e44b49 to 9d4efb5 Compare April 8, 2020 17:44

mikepizzo approved these changes Apr 8, 2020

View reviewed changes

KanishManuja-MS requested a review from xuzhg April 13, 2020 16:38

xuzhg reviewed Apr 13, 2020

View reviewed changes

xuzhg approved these changes Apr 13, 2020

View reviewed changes

KanishManuja-MS merged commit a664c1c into OData:master Apr 15, 2020

xuzhg mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2020

Multiple BaseType when entity implements interfaces #2256

Open


		[Fact]

		public async Task VerifyMetaDataIsGeneratedCorrectly()

Uh oh!

Conversation

KanishManuja-MS commented Dec 9, 2019

Issues

Description

Checklist (Uncheck if it is not completed)

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Feb 6, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg commented Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

KanishManuja-MS Feb 5, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

KanishManuja-MS Feb 7, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 • edited by KanishManuja-MS Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg commented Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Dec 16, 2019 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Jan 2, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Jan 2, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Jan 2, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Jan 2, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Jan 2, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Jan 2, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Jan 2, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Jan 2, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Jan 2, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Jan 2, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Mar 18, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading

xuzhg Mar 18, 2020 •

edited by KanishManuja-MS

Loading