fix: rewrite transformer(OOXML->CiceroMark) by K-Kumar-01 · Pull Request #421 · accordproject/markdown-transform

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-06-30T10:28:16Z

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com

This PR deals with rewriting the current OOXML transformer so that it supports nesting.

Changes

Major changes will be as follows:

Use DFS to traverse nodes
Generate node using the properties stored.
compare adjacent nodes for common properties(first n) and nest the second one into the common depth.

Author Checklist

Ensure you provide a DCO sign-off for your commits using the --signoff option of git commit.
Vital features and changes captured in unit and/or integration tests
Commits messages follow AP format
Extend the documentation, if necessary
Merging to master from fork:branchname

Remove old transformer logic Travserse the xml nodes in DFS manner Construct the ciceroMark of a node using properties Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-06-30T10:29:15Z

@algomaster99 @dselman
I have made the commit for OOXML Transformer. The tests will fail as of now.
The PR is made so that I can get a review on the logic used.

algomaster99 · 2021-06-30T10:32:33Z

If the tests fail, there must be something wrong with the logic. Let the tests speak for your code. That's why I stress on rigorous testing. The more unique test cases you add, the better your code becomes.

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-06-30T10:58:20Z

If the tests fail, there must be something wrong with the logic. Let the tests speak for your code. That's why I stress on rigorous testing. The more unique test cases you add, the better your code becomes.

By test fail, I mean that the current transformation is not complete, so for that the test fail. For the conversion text-and-emphasis, it passes.

Add heading transformation logic Create function to construct Nodes Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

Logic to transform variable OOXML tags Functions: getName, getElementType Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

Use a function to traverse runTime nodes use function only when the node is <w:r/> Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

Logic fix For loop range change Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

Check for element existence before using Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-06-30T22:48:10Z

@algomaster99 @dselman
Requesting your reviews. The rewriting of the transformer is completed. It passes the previous tests and also the nesting.json test which was added in the PR

Pass offline:true in model Manager Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

algomaster99

Left some comments. I have more questions than changes, so please address them when you get time. Just one more question - currently, you're only dealing with nesting of bold and italic elements, right?

So I couldn't properly test it using my custom inputs, probably because there is no CLI for this right now, and I don't want to log infinitely long strings in my terminal to check the output. This is an indication that we need to integrate these transformers with CLI as soon as possible.

algomaster99 · 2021-07-03T15:28:10Z

+                    ...this.JSONXML[i],
+                    properties: [...this.JSONXML[i].properties.slice(commonLength)],
                };
+                constructedNode = this.construtCiceroMarkNodeJSON(updatedProperties);


Could you explain why are you calling this method twice in the same block? Just wanted to understand the functioning.

Call for the 1st element in this.JSONXML.

Call for the remaining elements present in the above array using for loop

algomaster99 · 2021-07-03T15:49:27Z

-            if (property.name === 'w:t') {
-                return property.elements[0].text;
-            }
+    construtCiceroMarkNodeJSON(nodeInformation) {


construtCiceroMarkNodeJSON and constructNodes purposes are not clear from just reading the names of the methods or even docstrings. You have even mentioned or block CiceroMark Node in docstrings of constructNodes so why was construtCiceroMarkNodeJSON necessary in the first place?

Perusing your code made a little clearer that former creates atomic nodes like text, softbreak, etc. While the latter creates blocks for heading paragraph. So just write their method names properly without relying too much on the docstrings.

The spelling of "construct" is wrong. I have suggested this before and I will suggest again using an IDE or a VSCode plugin for spell checkers.

construtCiceroMarkNodeJSON and constructNodes purposes are not clear from just reading the names of the methods or even docstrings. You have even mentioned or block CiceroMark Node in docstrings of constructNodes so why was construtCiceroMarkNodeJSON necessary in the first place?

Perusing your code made a little clearer that former creates atomic nodes like text, softbreak, etc. While the latter creates blocks for heading paragraph. So just write their method names properly without relying too much on the docstrings.

construtCiceroMarkNodeJSON: It creates a text, softbreak or any other inline node
constructNodes:This creates all the nodes present in ap paragraph, or heading node.

This it the exact use of the above.

algomaster99 · 2021-07-03T15:52:28Z

+        } else if (nodeInformation.nodeType === 'variable') {
+            obj = {
+                $class: `${NS_PREFIX_CiceroMarkModel}Variable`,
+                value: nodeInformation.value || 'Not provided',


If the value of the variable is '', you transformer will return 'Not provided. So I think you can omit the or condition.

Moreover, I don't think so a variable entity would be without these attributes ever so you should omit all the or conditions. However, if this was possible CiceroMark should have defined a default empty value for each of these attributes.

This was done in the case that maybe a user uses sdt in word first and then tries to convert it in a ciceroMark. Although it won't be a variable and I agree here so I will remove this.

Return empty object if certain properties not present in variable Naming and dosctrings Refactor Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-07-03T17:08:36Z

@algomaster99
Updated the changes.

algomaster99 · 2021-07-03T18:12:34Z

+                $class: `${NS_PREFIX_CommonMarkModel}Softbreak`,
+            };
+        } else if (nodeInformation.nodeType === 'variable') {
+            if (nodeInformation.elementType && nodeInformation.name && nodeInformation.value) {


I don't think so you need this check. There won't be any case where any of them is not there if a variable is present.

There was a case present. This is the reason i used above.

Is this case handled in any test case? If not, please push it.

Actually, the test case file is deleted. I will try to recreate a similar test

@algomaster99
I have pushed a commit which involves the test for this.

{ "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Document", "xmlns": "http://commonmark.org/xml/1.0", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Heading", "level": "2", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "Try TemplateMark" } ] }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Paragraph", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "Just trying " }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "few things " }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Emph", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "here" } ] } ] }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Softbreak" }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "hello" } ] }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": " " }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "there" } ] } ] } ] }

This is the test case you pushed but I cannot see any variable entity. So your program shouldn't even enter this if branch.

To further prove my point, check this step out. The else branch is not being covered also.

algomaster99 · 2021-07-03T18:19:14Z

+        this.JSONXML = [];
+
+        // nodes of a paragraph or heading element
+        this.nodes = [];


Any reason why these are instance variables? Their content would be cleared after each block element is traversed so I think it would be better to pass such elements as parameters to functions where you need them.

I was not able to properly use them in a function that is the solo reason i used them as above.

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

algomaster99 · 2021-07-04T17:21:49Z

+                $class: `${NS_PREFIX_CommonMarkModel}Softbreak`,
+            };
+        } else if (nodeInformation.nodeType === 'variable') {
+            if (nodeInformation.elementType && nodeInformation.name && nodeInformation.value) {


{ "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Document", "xmlns": "http://commonmark.org/xml/1.0", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Heading", "level": "2", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "Try TemplateMark" } ] }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Paragraph", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "Just trying " }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "few things " }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Emph", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "here" } ] } ] }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Softbreak" }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "hello" } ] }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": " " }, { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong", "nodes": [ { "$class": "org.accordproject.commonmark.Text", "text": "there" } ] } ] } ] }

This is the test case you pushed but I cannot see any variable entity. So your program shouldn't even enter this if branch.

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-07-04T17:43:35Z

@algomaster99
I apologize. I understood the wrong case. This test is for the line 195.
As for the above-mentioned, previously it was done as I did currently. Hence, I did not change. Should I change it?

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-07-04T18:21:25Z

@algomaster99
Made the naming changes. Let me know if there are any changes required.

algomaster99 · 2021-07-04T18:24:27Z

+                $class: `${NS_PREFIX_CommonMarkModel}Softbreak`,
+            };
+        } else if (nodeInformation.nodeType === 'variable') {
+            if (nodeInformation.elementType && nodeInformation.name && nodeInformation.value) {


To further prove my point, check this step out. The else branch is not being covered also.

algomaster99 · 2021-07-04T18:25:14Z

+                    if (propertiesCurrent[j] === propertiesPrevious[j]) {
+                        commonPropertiesLength++;
+                    } else {
+                        break;


This is also not covered by the coverage tool. Either your tests are weak or this is unnecessary.

@algomaster99
else is not used currently since I am not having more inline elements which may cause this case to be called.

Handle it later then. If, suppose, you don't require it later, this branch would dangle in the codebase without any purpose.

@algomaster99
Updated the test case it now covers above.

algomaster99 · 2021-07-04T18:27:14Z

As for the above-mentioned, previously it was done as I did currently. Hence, I did not change. Should I change it?

Didn't get you. Could you please be clearer?

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-07-04T18:28:00Z

As for the above-mentioned, previously it was done as I did currently. Hence, I did not change. Should I change it?

Didn't get you. Could you please be more clearer?

I mean you also checked for the name, variable and type and then only defined that as variable.
talking about this

case 'w:sdt': {
            const name = this.getName(element.elements);
            const value = this.getValue(element.elements);
            const elementType = this.getElementType(element.elements);
            if (name && value && elementType) {
                return {
                    $class: 'org.accordproject.ciceromark.Variable',
                    value,
                    name,
                    elementType,
                };
            }
            return this.deserializeElements(element.elements);
        }

algomaster99 · 2021-07-04T18:35:00Z

I mean you also checked for the name, variable and type and then only defined that as variable.

Well, you are here to improve the code, right? If the justification of your change is "Aman has done like that", you won't be able to improve it much. I wrote a broken transformer last year but take inspiration from it and please question things if they are now necessary or not.

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-07-04T18:38:21Z

I mean you also checked for the name, variable and type and then only defined that as variable.

Well, you are here to improve the code, right? If the justification of your change is "Aman has done like that", you won't be able to improve it much. I wrote a broken transformer last year but take inspiration from it and please question things if they are now necessary or not.

Sure, but I also have a doubt regarding this. Let's say anyone who used docx first and then he wanted to convert to ciceroMark.
Also, he/she didn't give any name or type. Then will it be a variable?

algomaster99 · 2021-07-04T18:43:33Z

he/she didn't give any name or type

That's only possible when someone is writing the entire OOXML on their own. Or generating it and purposefully deleting its attribute. In both cases, it's the client's fault and we cannot do anything about it.

algomaster99 · 2021-07-04T18:50:56Z

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Document","xmlns":"http://commonmark.org/xml/1.0","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Heading","level":"2","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"Try TemplateMark"}]},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Paragraph","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"Just trying "},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"few things "},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Emph","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"here"}]}]},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Softbreak"},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"hello"}]},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":" "},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"there"}]}]}]}


Is this test doing something different than the test you proposed in #418 ?

@algomaster99
it can explain why ternary operator is used in line 195.

Are you talking about this line (} else if (runTimeProperties.name === 'w:b') {)? This doesn't have a ternary operator.

nodeInformation.value = runTimeNodes.elements ? runTimeNodes.elements[0].text : ' ';
This line. I think it got shifted a bit in the latest commit.

Check this step out. This is from the build of 00f4830 - the commit just before you added this test case. The line which you are mentioning was already covered by the coverage tool so adding this test case is not useful for checking this line. Is it doing something else?

The test is a special case. It does not increase coverage, but is there to tell why ternary operator is required and not simply write the expression runTimeNodes.elements[0].text

Okay, now it makes sense.

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-07-04T23:17:05Z

@algomaster99
Let me know if any changes are required.

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 · 2021-07-05T11:08:39Z

@algomaster99
Tried renaming the files.
I tried using should-parse but later gave up as it unnecessarily made the file name long.

algomaster99 · 2021-07-05T11:11:47Z

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Document","xmlns":"http://commonmark.org/xml/1.0","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Paragraph","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"just trying "},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"strong"}]},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Emph","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"italic"}]}]}]}


Sometimes I wish JSON had comments but anyway, this sounds good.

algomaster99 · 2021-07-05T11:15:57Z

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Document","xmlns":"http://commonmark.org/xml/1.0","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Heading","level":"2","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"Try TemplateMark"}]},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Paragraph","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"Just trying "},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"few things "},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Emph","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"here"}]}]},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Softbreak"},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"hello"}]},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":" "},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"there"}]}]}]}


You aren't parsing the "ternary operator in text". You are parsing text nodes that only have a space. One question here - do you have an idea when MS Word interprets something as space and when as a softbreak? Shouldn't this space have been a softbreak instead? If no, could you send the markdown file you parsed this CiceroMark from?

The markdown file is

strong italic

You aren't parsing the "ternary operator in text". You are parsing text nodes that only have a space. One question here - do you have an idea when MS Word interprets something as space and when as a softbreak? Shouldn't this space have been a softbreak instead? If no, could you send the markdown file you parsed this CiceroMark from?

I am not sure but I think xmljs might not consider space string as elements. Otherwise, it won't throw cannot read property 0 of undefined(AFAIR).

You aren't parsing the "ternary operator in text". You are parsing text nodes that only have a space.

Said this with respect to the file name of the test case.

Yeah, I got that. I was just explaining the reason for the space thing which might be due to xmljs. I will rename the file.
I mistakenly quoted the complete statement instead of the line

One question here - do you have an idea when MS Word interprets something as space and when as a softbreak? Shouldn't this space have been a softbreak instead?

I am not sure but I think xmljs might not consider space string as elements. Otherwise, it won't throw cannot read property 0 of undefined(AFAIR).

I don't think so XMLJS is screwing up here. It's the template mark dingus because it should have interpreted that space as softbreak.

Anyway, if there are cases like this, then it makes sense to have that ternary operator.

@algomaster99
Made the push. Is the current name correct?

Sounds good.

Rename file to suit test file and not code execution Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

feat: text-and-emphasis transformer

e1bde01

Remove old transformer logic Travserse the xml nodes in DFS manner Construct the ciceroMark of a node using properties Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 requested review from algomaster99 and dselman June 30, 2021 10:28

K-Kumar-01 added 7 commits June 30, 2021 16:37

feat: heading transformer

5b3c6a3

Add heading transformation logic Create function to construct Nodes Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

feat: variable transformer

a3cf16d

Logic to transform variable OOXML tags Functions: getName, getElementType Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

refactor: runTime node traversal

d3fe1ba

Use a function to traverse runTime nodes use function only when the node is <w:r/> Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

feat: softbreak transformer

e56342b

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

feat: add strong transformer

93ce48d

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

fix: constructNodes()

bb2b5c4

Logic fix For loop range change Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

fix: undefined elements

a9d8f74

Check for element existence before using Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

fix: test failure

129eb83

Pass offline:true in model Manager Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

algomaster99 suggested changes Jul 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

refactor: naming, docstrings

00f4830

Return empty object if certain properties not present in variable Naming and dosctrings Refactor Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 requested a review from algomaster99 July 3, 2021 17:08

algomaster99 suggested changes Jul 3, 2021

View reviewed changes

tests(markdown-docx): Add more tests

31d25a9

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 mentioned this pull request Jul 4, 2021

feat(markdown-transform): add transformation CiceroMark<->OOXML #424

Merged

5 tasks

K-Kumar-01 requested a review from algomaster99 July 4, 2021 13:10

algomaster99 suggested changes Jul 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

refactor(markdown-docx): appropriate naming

7e8b88f

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 requested a review from algomaster99 July 4, 2021 18:21

algomaster99 reviewed Jul 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

tests(markdown-docx): add test, improve coverage

da9528d

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

K-Kumar-01 requested a review from algomaster99 July 4, 2021 23:17

tests(markdown-docx): rename files

5a712e4

Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

algomaster99 reviewed Jul 5, 2021

View reviewed changes

K-Kumar-01 requested a review from algomaster99 July 5, 2021 11:25

tests(markdown-docx): rename file

660ee69

Rename file to suit test file and not code execution Signed-off-by: K-Kumar-01 <kushalkumargupta4@gmail.com>

algomaster99 approved these changes Jul 5, 2021

View reviewed changes

algomaster99 merged commit da05f4e into algoo-ooxml Jul 5, 2021

algomaster99 deleted the k-kumar-01/rewrite-transformer-OOXML branch July 5, 2021 14:45

		@@ -0,0 +1 @@
		{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Document","xmlns":"http://commonmark.org/xml/1.0","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Heading","level":"2","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"Try TemplateMark"}]},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Paragraph","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"Just trying "},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"few things "},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Emph","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"here"}]}]},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Softbreak"},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"hello"}]},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":" "},{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Strong","nodes":[{"$class":"org.accordproject.commonmark.Text","text":"there"}]}]}]} No newline at end of file

Conversation

K-Kumar-01 commented Jun 30, 2021

Changes

Author Checklist

Uh oh!

K-Kumar-01 commented Jun 30, 2021

Uh oh!

algomaster99 commented Jun 30, 2021

Uh oh!

K-Kumar-01 commented Jun 30, 2021

Uh oh!

K-Kumar-01 commented Jun 30, 2021

Uh oh!

algomaster99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

K-Kumar-01 commented Jul 3, 2021

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!

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!

K-Kumar-01 Jul 3, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

K-Kumar-01 commented Jul 4, 2021

Uh oh!

K-Kumar-01 commented Jul 4, 2021

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!

algomaster99 commented Jul 4, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

K-Kumar-01 Jul 3, 2021 •

edited

Loading

algomaster99 commented Jul 4, 2021 •

edited

Loading

K-Kumar-01 commented Jul 4, 2021 •

edited

Loading

K-Kumar-01 commented Jul 4, 2021 •

edited

Loading

K-Kumar-01 commented Jul 5, 2021 •

edited

Loading