GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

GeezerVison is showing github.com — Add new special assignment kinds for recognizing Object.defineProperty calls by weswigham · Pull Request #27208 · microsoft/TypeScript

Conversation

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Sep 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

As special property assignments in JS.

Fixes #25854
Fixes #26082
Fixes #6651

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

AbdelrahmanHafez reacted with hooray emoji

All reactions

🎉 1 reaction


          Add new special assignment kinds for recognizing Object.definePropert…

66a5531

…y calls

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) requested review from a user, Ryan Cavanaugh (RyanCavanaugh) and Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn)

September 19, 2018 00:35

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Sep 19, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

Does it also fix #26082 and #6651? (I have yet to read the code.)

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) reviewed

Sep 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) left a comment

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Initial comments. Most of them are nitpicky, and I haven't looked at binder or checker yet.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Comment thread

src/compiler/utilities.ts Outdated


		function getAssignmentDeclarationKindWorker(expr: BinaryExpression): AssignmentDeclarationKind {
		export function isBindableObjectDefinePropertyCall(expr: CallExpression): expr is BindableObjectDefinePropertyCall {
		return !(length(expr.arguments) !== 3 \|\|

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Sep 19, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

! ... !== .. || ? Why not write it as ... === ... && ?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Sep 19, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, I thought you said the third one was optional? I guess we won't be able to get the type in that case, but we could still bind the property with type any.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) Sep 20, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not optional, it just has a few different shapes it can take.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Comment thread

src/compiler/checker.ts Outdated

		// Variables declared with 'const'
		// Get accessors without matching set accessors
		// Enum members
		// JS Assignments with writable false or no setter

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Sep 19, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

pedantically (since I spent a day thinking about terms), it's better to say // define-property assignments with writable false or no setter. This parallels terminology of things that are parllel, like "this-property assignments" or "prototype assignments".

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Comment thread

src/compiler/types.ts Outdated

		/** @internal */
		export type BindableObjectDefinePropertyCall = CallExpression & { arguments: { 0: EntityNameExpression, 1: StringLiteralLike \| NumericLiteral, 2: ObjectLiteralExpression } };

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Sep 19, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

extra newline

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Comment thread

src/compiler/utilities.ts Outdated

		case SyntaxKind.PropertyAssignment:
		return init.initializer;
		case SyntaxKind.ShorthandPropertyAssignment:
		case SyntaxKind.MethodDeclaration:

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Sep 19, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

which ones are allowed to be methods? get? set? value?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) Sep 20, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Get and set often are. Value can be, it'd be the same as a property with a function expression value, though.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) Sep 20, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this function is unused in my current implementation, though.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Comment thread

src/compiler/utilities.ts Outdated

		return AssignmentDeclarationKind.None;
		}
		const entityName = expr.arguments[0];
		if ((isIdentifier(entityName) && entityName.escapedText === "exports") \|\| (isPropertyAccessExpression(entityName) && isIdentifier(entityName.expression) && entityName.expression.escapedText === "module" && entityName.name.escapedText === "exports")) {

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Sep 19, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

newline needed in here somewhere

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

weswigham reacted with heart emoji

All reactions

❤️ 1 reaction

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Sep 20, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

#6651 definitely is included here. At least for JS.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Sep 20, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

I think I need extra handling to cover the prototype assignment case as in Object.defineProperty(Person.prototype for #26082.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Ryan Cavanaugh (RyanCavanaugh) added this to the TypeScript 3.2 milestone

Sep 20, 2018

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) added 3 commits

September 24, 2018 10:41


          Merge branch 'master' into special-object-assignment

f91debf


          Merge branch 'master' into special-object-assignment

a1780fe


          Add support for prototype assignments, fix nits

66d2bb7

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Sep 24, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

Nathan Shively-Sanders (@sandersn) I've added support for prototype property assignments.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) self-assigned this

Oct 9, 2018

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) reviewed

Oct 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

src/compiler/binder.ts

		case AssignmentDeclarationKind.None:
		break; // Nothing to do
		default:
		return Debug.fail("Unknown call expression assignment declaration kind");

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Oct 9, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Debug.assertNever is better here I think.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) Oct 9, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

assignmentKind has all the non-object-define values still "possible" (they're not, because it's a call expression and not a binary expression) and so isn't never; so not quite?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) reviewed

Oct 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

src/compiler/utilities.ts Outdated

		return AssignmentDeclarationKind.None;
		}
		const entityName = expr.arguments[0];
		if ((isIdentifier(entityName) && entityName.escapedText === "exports") \|\|

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Oct 9, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe we should have a is[Module]Exports utility since this is repeated for the ExportsProperty case below.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) Oct 9, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hilariously enough, 10 lines up we already have one, with exactly what i was going to name it.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) reviewed

Oct 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

src/compiler/checker.ts

		function getInitializerTypeFromAssignmentDeclaration(symbol: Symbol, resolvedSymbol: Symbol \| undefined, expression: BinaryExpression \| CallExpression, kind: AssignmentDeclarationKind) {
		if (isCallExpression(expression)) {
		if (resolvedSymbol) {
		return getTypeOfSymbol(resolvedSymbol); // This shouldn't happen except under some hopefully forbidden merges of export assignments and object define assignments

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Oct 9, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is there a test for this case?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) Oct 10, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

AFAIK I can't construct something that can actually hit this codepath currently (since something like Object.defineProperty(module, "exports", { value: "no" }) won't be bound to the module in the first place); but I wanna avoid crashing and burning if we change something, and this seems reasonable (ignoring the reassignment). I'll add a test with similar content that could trigger it if we ever do start binding it a bit differently, though.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) reviewed

Oct 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

src/compiler/checker.ts Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) reviewed

Oct 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

src/compiler/checker.ts

		isObjectLiteralExpression(container.parent.parent) &&
		isCallExpression(container.parent.parent.parent) &&
		container.parent.parent.parent.arguments[2] === container.parent.parent &&
		getAssignmentDeclarationKind(container.parent.parent.parent) === AssignmentDeclarationKind.ObjectDefinePrototypeProperty) {

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Oct 9, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(this applies to all the cases in this function) Would it be possible, and more efficient, to just check that parent x 3 exists and then just check the result of getAssignmentDeclarationKind? I think the rest of the predicate is duplicated with it.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) Oct 10, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not quite - these are actually some extra constraints which ask that the third argument be specifically an object literal (rather than anything we might be able to pull a type from), to inject a this type into the method defined in it, even if Object.defineProperty's signature lacks a strong this (and, in fact, it does lack one).

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) reviewed

Oct 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

src/compiler/checker.ts Outdated

		case AssignmentDeclarationKind.ObjectDefinePropertyValue:
		case AssignmentDeclarationKind.ObjectDefinePropertyExports:
		case AssignmentDeclarationKind.ObjectDefinePrototypeProperty:
		return Debug.fail("Unimplemented");

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Oct 9, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"Not yet implemented" or "Does not apply"? Isn't it the latter?

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) Oct 9, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yea, definitely the later.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) reviewed

Oct 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

src/compiler/checker.ts Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) requested changes

Oct 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) left a comment

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some questions and suggestions, plus I need to look at the tests.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Oct 10, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

Can you see what happens with the user tests? (and maybe RWC, although I don't think there's much JS there.)

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) reviewed

Oct 10, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

tests/baselines/reference/checkExportsObjectAssignProperty.errors.txt Resolved

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) reviewed

Oct 10, 2018

View reviewed changes

Comment thread

tests/baselines/reference/checkObjectDefineProperty.errors.txt


		==== tests/cases/conformance/jsdoc/index.js (0 errors) ====
		const x = {};
		Object.defineProperty(x, "name", { value: "Charles", writable: true });

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) Oct 10, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

you should have a value test that leaves off writable, if that's allowed. Actually, you should have a test with value left out too. And maybe a test with some of the properties we don't care about?

Also a test with non-literals, just in case that hurts our ... error reporting or something?

According to MDN's Object.defineProperty page, we should have an error if both get/set and value are present. I didn't see a test for that either.

Also, who spells 'writeable' as 'writable'?
Later:everybody else, it turns out.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

weswigham reacted with heart emoji

All reactions

❤️ 1 reaction


          Fix code review comments

01589fb

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Oct 10, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

Nathan Shively-Sanders (@sandersn) I've replied to or addressed all of your comments; how'd you feel about this now?

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Oct 11, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

Looks good except for four things:

A test that has an initialiser that is just a variable, not some literal.
A test that has a property name that is a variable of type string. (It shouldn’t result in a property, right?)
A test that has a property name that is a variable with constant value, if the behaviour is different than 2.
An error for when you have both value and get+set, or neither.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Oct 11, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

An error for when you have both value and get+set, or neither

The function is still typechecked as a function call, so that aughta still be happening provided the lib definition is written such that the argument is a union (it isn't, it uses a single weak type).

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Oct 11, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

OK, then I guess we should consider changing it afterward. It would probably break some code, though.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Oct 19, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member

Wesley Wigham (@weswigham) It would be nice to get this one in. Will you have time to add those tests some time?

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Oct 19, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

Yeah, I'll take some time to add them today.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) added 2 commits

October 19, 2018 10:54


          Merge branch 'master' into special-object-assignment

71e8d8c


          Add test documenting behavior in a few more odd scenarios

8da77c6

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Oct 19, 2018

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

Nathan Shively-Sanders (@sandersn) done

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) approved these changes

Oct 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) merged commit 69b1cb5 into microsoft:master

Oct 19, 2018

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) deleted the special-object-assignment branch

October 19, 2018 21:32

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) mentioned this pull request

Nov 6, 2018

Javascript should support defineProperty assignments to exports #22439

Closed

Evan Jacobs (quantizor) commented Apr 8, 2020

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Sorry to comment on a long closed issue, but is this also implemented for Object.defineProperties? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/defineProperties

tehhowch, treardon17, and khooz reacted with thumbs up emoji

All reactions

👍 3 reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Apr 8, 2020

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

Nope.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

calvintwr commented Aug 15, 2021

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Does this still work? It's not for me in VScode:

Version: 1.59.0
Commit: 379476f0e13988d90fab105c5c19e7abc8b1dea8
Date: 2021-08-04T23:14:40.191Z
Electron: 13.1.7
Chrome: 91.0.4472.124
Node.js: 14.16.0
V8: 9.1.269.36-electron.0
OS: Darwin x64 19.6.0

Suppose the following code:

test.ts:

const something = {
    somethingValue: 'test'
}
Object.defineProperty(something, 'definedProperty', {
    value: 'hello'
})
export default something

test2.ts:

import Thing from './test'

Thing.somethingValue // this is okay
Thing.definedProperty // this will have red curly underline

So why does Thing.definedProperty have red curlies? Wesley Wigham (@weswigham) Nathan Shively-Sanders (@sandersn)

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Aug 15, 2021

Copy link

Copy Markdown

Member Author

We only recognize them in .js files, not .ts.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

calvintwr commented Aug 15, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link

Copy Markdown

I see. But because it wasn't working in JS, that's why I converted it to TS to see if it works.

I reverted the files to JS, and the screenshot below shows that it wasn't able to see the property defined using #defineProperty:

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Enrico Angelon (enricoangelon) commented Nov 27, 2021

Copy link

Copy Markdown

We only recognize them in .js files, not .ts.

I think it's time for a .ts implementation too!

calvintwr, MichaelTheriot, and riflowth reacted with thumbs up emoji

All reactions

👍 3 reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Alexander Rau (AR0x7E7) commented Apr 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link

Copy Markdown

using Visual Studio Code 1.66.0 I can confirm that Object.defineProperty appears to be not recognized

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Microsoft (microsoft) locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators

Oct 21, 2025

Reviewers

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn)

sandersn approved these changes

Ryan Cavanaugh (RyanCavanaugh)

Awaiting requested review from RyanCavanaugh

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn)

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

TypeScript 3.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

JavaScript IntelliSense Should Recognize DefineProperty Types are not imported properly for packages that use exports.default. Salsa does not discover properties defined with Object.defineProperty

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

7 participants

Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.

You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.

Conversation

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Sep 19, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Sep 19, 2018

Uh oh!

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Sep 20, 2018

Uh oh!

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Sep 20, 2018

Uh oh!

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Sep 24, 2018

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Oct 10, 2018

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Oct 10, 2018

Uh oh!

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Oct 11, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Oct 11, 2018

Uh oh!

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Oct 11, 2018

Uh oh!

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Oct 19, 2018

Uh oh!

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Oct 19, 2018

Uh oh!

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Oct 19, 2018

Uh oh!

Evan Jacobs (quantizor) commented Apr 8, 2020

Uh oh!

Wesley Wigham (weswigham) commented Sep 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (sandersn) commented Oct 11, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

calvintwr commented Aug 15, 2021 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Alexander Rau (AR0x7E7) commented Apr 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.