test, refactor: add GetTransaction() coverage, improve rpc_rawtransaction #22437

jonatack · 2021-07-13T13:23:38Z

Following up on #22383 (review), this pull adds missing src/node/transaction::GetTransaction() test coverage for combinations of -txindex and blockhash and does some refactoring of the test file.

jonatack · 2021-07-13T13:46:33Z

Test output after these changes. The slow legacy multisig tests are placed at the end.

$ test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py 
2021-08-31T20:07:10.312000Z TestFramework (INFO): Initializing test directory /tmp/bitcoin_func_test_uf3csrh5
2021-08-31T20:07:11.886000Z TestFramework (INFO): Prepare some coins for multiple *rawtransaction commands
2021-08-31T20:07:20.276000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test getrawtransaction with -txindex
2021-08-31T20:07:20.306000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test getrawtransaction without -txindex
2021-08-31T20:07:21.601000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test getrawtransaction with -txindex, with blockhash
2021-08-31T20:07:21.605000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test getrawtransaction with -txindex, without blockhash: 'in_active_chain' should be absent
2021-08-31T20:07:21.655000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test getrawtransaction without -txindex, with blockhash
2021-08-31T20:07:21.659000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test getrawtransaction without -txindex, without blockhash: expect the call to raise
2021-08-31T20:07:21.704000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test getrawtransaction on genesis block coinbase returns an error
2021-08-31T20:07:21.712000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test createrawtransaction
2021-08-31T20:07:21.944000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test signrawtransactionwithwallet with missing prevtx info (bech32)
2021-08-31T20:07:22.021000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test signrawtransactionwithwallet with missing prevtx info (p2sh-segwit)
2021-08-31T20:07:22.106000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test signrawtransactionwithwallet with missing prevtx info (legacy)
2021-08-31T20:07:22.175000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test sendrawtransaction with missing input
2021-08-31T20:07:22.205000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test sendrawtransaction/testmempoolaccept with maxfeerate
2021-08-31T20:07:23.777000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test sendrawtransaction/testmempoolaccept with tx already in the chain
2021-08-31T20:07:23.858000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test decoderawtransaction
2021-08-31T20:07:23.886000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test transaction version numbers
2021-08-31T20:07:23.894000Z TestFramework (INFO): Test raw multisig transactions (legacy)
2021-08-31T20:07:30.595000Z TestFramework (INFO): Stopping nodes
2021-08-31T20:07:30.858000Z TestFramework (INFO): Cleaning up /tmp/bitcoin_func_test_uf3csrh5 on exit
2021-08-31T20:07:30.858000Z TestFramework (INFO): Tests successful

DrahtBot · 2021-07-13T19:10:45Z

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#22788 (scripted-diff: Use generate* from TestFramework by MarcoFalke)
#19831 (test: Check that decoderawtransaction heuristic may fail by MarcoFalke)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

mjdietzx · 2021-07-14T19:46:06Z

ACK 993189b very nicely done!

jonatack · 2021-07-15T08:20:30Z

Thanks @mjdietzx! Rebased to master following the merge of #22447, dropping the first two commits; no other change.

git range-diff 97153a7 993189b d27edf1

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py

lsilva01

Tested ACK d27edf1 on Ubuntu 20.04

rajarshimaitra

tACK d27edf1.

verified that the test passes with #22383 changes.

Below are few comments regarding test coverage and arrangements.

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py

practicalswift · 2021-07-24T20:04:50Z

Concept ACK

jonatack · 2021-08-08T15:29:29Z

Rebased due to #22510 and updated with the excellent review feedback from @kiminuo and @rajarshimaitra (thanks!)

Commit-by-commit changes (re-pushed a second time for #22437 (comment)):

git range-diff db94d74 d27edf1 7f7e64e

Thank you @mjdietzx, @lsilva01, and @rajarshimaitra for the ACKs. Would you mind re-ACKing?

rajarshimaitra

Thanks @jonatack for considering the comments.

Re tested ACK afb4eab

It might not be a good place to discuss test approaches here, but I have the following observations

I am finding that getrawtransaction_tests setup can be simplified a bit. Instead of 3 transactions (all in the chain) we can do the test with just one. All we need is a tx in a block and its id. So if we simply start the test like this

       test_tx = self.nodes[2].sendtoaddress(self.nodes[1].getnewaddress(), 1)
       test_tx_hex = self.nodes[2].getrawtransaction(test_tx)
       block1, block2 = self.nodes[2].generate(2)
       self.sync_peers()

this will give us everything we want to do the assertions. This I feel will simplify the testing logic and would make the test easy
to reason about.

The #22383 changes behaviour that if txindex is on, the blockhash searching won't take place even if it's provided. It seems to me that this particular behaviour is not being tested. I am also not sure what can be a possible approach to test this. But I feel this needs to be covered, as it's a performance boost, and we don't want future PR to accidentally change this.

Would like to have your thoughts on the above. It's not necessary to have those changes in this PR itself.

Below is a minor redundancy I found.

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py

jonatack · 2021-08-08T17:13:25Z

@rajarshimaitra I agree, bringing together the various related tests shows that we can simplify them. I'll look at integrating the following diff based on your suggestion, which works for me, into the changes.

code diff

diff --git a/test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py b/test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py
index 84210d3a03..cc6324d9fc 100755
--- a/test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py
+++ b/test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py
@@ -101,19 +101,9 @@ class RawTransactionsTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
             self.raw_multisig_transaction_legacy_tests()
 
     def getrawtransaction_tests(self):
-        addr = self.nodes[1].getnewaddress()
-        txid = self.nodes[0].sendtoaddress(addr, 10)
-        self.generate_and_sync(node=0, blocks=1)
-        vout = find_vout_for_address(self.nodes[1], txid, addr)
-        rawTx = self.nodes[1].createrawtransaction([{'txid': txid, 'vout': vout}], {self.nodes[1].getnewaddress(): 9.999})
-        rawTxSigned = self.nodes[1].signrawtransactionwithwallet(rawTx)
-        txid2 = self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(rawTxSigned['hex'])
-        self.generate_and_sync(node=0, blocks=1)
-
         # Make a tx by sending, then generate 2 blocks; block1 has the tx in it
-        txid3 = self.nodes[2].sendtoaddress(self.nodes[1].getnewaddress(), 1)
+        tx = self.nodes[2].sendtoaddress(self.nodes[1].getnewaddress(), 1)
+        hex = self.nodes[2].getrawtransaction(tx)
         block1, block2 = self.nodes[2].generate(2)
-        self.sync_peers()
 
         err_msg = (
             "No such mempool transaction. Use -txindex or provide a block hash to enable"
@@ -134,47 +124,44 @@ class RawTransactionsTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
             if n == 0 or n == 5:
                 # with -txindex
                 for verbose in [None, 0, False]:
-                    assert_equal(self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction(txid2, verbose), rawTxSigned['hex'])
+                    assert_equal(self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction(tx, verbose), hex)
                 for verbose in [1, True]:
-                    gottx1 = self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction(txid2, verbose)
-                    assert_equal(gottx1['hex'], rawTxSigned['hex'])
-                    assert 'in_active_chain' not in gottx1.keys()
-                    gottx2 = self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction(txid=txid3, verbose=verbose)
-                    assert_equal(gottx2['txid'], txid3)
-                    assert 'in_active_chain' not in gottx2.keys()
+                    gottx = self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction(tx, verbose)
+                    assert_equal(gottx['hex'], hex)
+                    assert 'in_active_chain' not in gottx.keys()
             else:
                 # without -txindex
                 for verbose in [None, 0, False, 1, True]:
-                    assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, err_msg, self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid2, verbose)
+                    assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, err_msg, self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, tx, verbose)
 
             # 2. invalid parameters - supply txid and invalid boolean values (strings) for verbose
             for value in ["True", "False"]:
-                assert_raises_rpc_error(-1, "not a boolean", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=txid2, verbose=value)
+                assert_raises_rpc_error(-1, "not a boolean", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=tx, verbose=value)
 
             # 3. invalid parameters - supply txid and empty array
-            assert_raises_rpc_error(-1, "not a boolean", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid2, [])
+            assert_raises_rpc_error(-1, "not a boolean", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, tx, [])
 
             # 4. invalid parameters - supply txid and empty dict
-            assert_raises_rpc_error(-1, "not a boolean", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid2, {})
+            assert_raises_rpc_error(-1, "not a boolean", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, tx, {})
 
             # 5. with block hash
             # We should be able to get the raw transaction by providing the correct block
-            gottx = self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction(txid=txid3, verbose=True, blockhash=block1)
-            assert_equal(gottx['txid'], txid3)
+            gottx = self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction(txid=tx, verbose=True, blockhash=block1)
+            assert_equal(gottx['txid'], tx)
             assert_equal(gottx['in_active_chain'], True)
             # We should not get the tx if we provide an unrelated block
-            assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, "No such transaction found", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=txid3, blockhash=block2)
+            assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, "No such transaction found", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=tx, blockhash=block2)
             # An invalid block hash should raise the correct errors
-            assert_raises_rpc_error(-1, "JSON value is not a string as expected", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=txid3, blockhash=True)
-            assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "parameter 3 must be of length 64 (not 6, for 'foobar')", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=txid3, blockhash="foobar")
-            assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "parameter 3 must be of length 64 (not 8, for 'abcd1234')", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=txid3, blockhash="abcd1234")
+            assert_raises_rpc_error(-1, "JSON value is not a string as expected", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=tx, blockhash=True)
+            assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "parameter 3 must be of length 64 (not 6, for 'foobar')", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=tx, blockhash="foobar")
+            assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, "parameter 3 must be of length 64 (not 8, for 'abcd1234')", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=tx, blockhash="abcd1234")
             foo = "ZZZ0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
-            assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, f"parameter 3 must be hexadecimal string (not '{foo}')", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=txid3, blockhash=foo)
+            assert_raises_rpc_error(-8, f"parameter 3 must be hexadecimal string (not '{foo}')", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=tx, blockhash=foo)
             bar = "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
-            assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, "Block hash not found", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=txid3, blockhash=bar)
+            assert_raises_rpc_error(-5, "Block hash not found", self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction, txid=tx, blockhash=bar)
             # Undo the blocks and verify that "in_active_chain" is false.
             self.nodes[n].invalidateblock(block1)
-            gottx = self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction(txid=txid3, verbose=True, blockhash=block1)
+            gottx = self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction(txid=tx, verbose=True, blockhash=block1)
             assert_equal(gottx['in_active_chain'], False)
             self.nodes[n].reconsiderblock(block1)
             assert_equal(self.nodes[n].getbestblockhash(), block2)

It if txindex is on, the blockhash searching won't take place even if it's provided. It seems to me that this particular behaviour is not being tested. I am also not sure what can be a possible approach to test this.

At first glance I don't see a straightforward way to test which code path is taken in that case with the current code, as there is no observable difference in behavior other than hopefully in performance, for which a benchmark could be added.

jonatack · 2021-08-08T18:11:48Z

@rajarshimaitra I've appended a commit with you as the author. Let me know if the name and email codeShark149 <rajarshi149@gmail.com> are correct.

fanquake · 2021-08-09T07:14:17Z

It could be a good to reorder some of these commits so we're not making one change, then changing the same lines again straight after. For example, in 10a3db0 you rename variables i.e tx, txId to txid2, txid3 etc. However in the following commit (c2d7995), a bunch of those end up being renamed again, i.e txid3 and txid2 back to tx.

jonatack · 2021-08-24T08:42:23Z

Thanks everyone for the reviews! It would be nice for this to be merged before any other change touching this file invalidates all the review. One can hope :)

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py

jonatack · 2021-08-31T14:32:12Z

Dropped the commits after d426cab, no other change to not invalidate review. Can continue with the other improvements (test de-duplication, in-mempool txn tests, setup simplification, variable naming cleanup, and others) in a follow-up.

(and make the 'string "Flase"' test clearer as requested by reviewers)

jonatack · 2021-08-31T19:47:43Z

Squashed the first two commits per review feedback and made some minor improvements per git diff d426cab 387355b.

mjdietzx · 2021-08-31T20:52:08Z

reACK 387355b

josibake · 2021-09-01T06:31:24Z

reACK 387355b

maflcko

nice. Thanks.

Approach ACK 387355b 🔆

Show signature and timestamp

Signature:

Timestamp of file with hash 2d816e7fc4d23afbf4d13cf22ed4e17e67a0d483e53eeb2099251d3af22c67e7 -

maflcko · 2022-01-06T14:40:03Z

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py

+        vout = find_vout_for_address(self.nodes[1], txid, addr)
+        rawTx = self.nodes[1].createrawtransaction([{'txid': txid, 'vout': vout}], {self.nodes[1].getnewaddress(): 9.999})
+        rawTxSigned = self.nodes[1].signrawtransactionwithwallet(rawTx)
+        txId = self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(rawTxSigned['hex'])


Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/marco/workspace/btc_bitcoin_core/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py", line 132, in main self.run_test() File "/home/marco/workspace/btc_bitcoin_core/test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py", line 84, in run_test self.getrawtransaction_tests() File "/home/marco/workspace/btc_bitcoin_core/test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py", line 107, in getrawtransaction_tests assert_equal(self.nodes[n].getrawtransaction(txId), rawTxSigned['hex']) File "/home/marco/workspace/btc_bitcoin_core/test/functional/test_framework/coverage.py", line 49, in __call__ return_val = self.auth_service_proxy_instance.__call__(*args, **kwargs) File "/home/marco/workspace/btc_bitcoin_core/test/functional/test_framework/authproxy.py", line 144, in __call__ raise JSONRPCException(response['error'], status) test_framework.authproxy.JSONRPCException: No such mempool transaction. Use -txindex or provide a block hash to enable blockchain transaction queries. Use gettransaction for wallet transactions. (-5)

not sure how this could happen, though...

Looks like the test isn't testing anything, as the tx is never included in a block.

If the tx is included, the test will fail:

diff --git a/test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py b/test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py index 96691b2686..b648012413 100755 --- a/test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py +++ b/test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ class RawTransactionsTest(BitcoinTestFramework): rawTx = self.nodes[1].createrawtransaction([{'txid': txid, 'vout': vout}], {self.nodes[1].getnewaddress(): 9.999}) rawTxSigned = self.nodes[1].signrawtransactionwithwallet(rawTx) txId = self.nodes[1].sendrawtransaction(rawTxSigned['hex']) - self.generate(self.nodes[0], 1) + self.generateblock(self.nodes[0], output=self.nodes[0].getnewaddress(), transactions=[rawTxSigned['hex']]) for n in [0, 3]: self.log.info(f"Test getrawtransaction {'with' if n == 0 else 'without'} -txindex")

Thanks, was working on the part 2 follow-up to this, will have a look.

fanquake added the Tests label Jul 13, 2021

jonatack mentioned this pull request Jul 13, 2021

rpc: Prefer to use txindex if available for GetTransaction #22383

Merged

jonatack force-pushed the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch from 241ef3a to 27ed21d Compare July 13, 2021 14:39

This was referenced Jul 14, 2021

tests: Run both descriptor and legacy tests within a single test invocation #20892

Closed

test: Implicitly sync after generate* to preempt races and intermittent test failures #20362

Closed

test: Check that decoderawtransaction heuristic may fail #19831

Closed

jonatack force-pushed the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch from 27ed21d to 729518f Compare July 14, 2021 13:47

jonatack mentioned this pull request Jul 14, 2021

test: whitelist rpc_rawtransaction peers to speed up tests #22447

Merged

jonatack force-pushed the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch from 729518f to 993189b Compare July 14, 2021 14:18

jonatack force-pushed the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch from 993189b to d27edf1 Compare July 15, 2021 08:17

jonatack mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2021

CI timeout in test/functional/p2p_addr_relay.py::L184 #22449

Closed

kiminuo reviewed Jul 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

kiminuo reviewed Jul 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Show resolved Hide resolved

kiminuo reviewed Jul 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

lsilva01 approved these changes Jul 22, 2021

View reviewed changes

rajarshimaitra reviewed Jul 23, 2021

View reviewed changes

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Show resolved Hide resolved

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Jul 28, 2021

test: Implicitly sync after generate* to preempt races and intermittent test failures #22567

Closed

jonatack force-pushed the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch from d27edf1 to afb4eab Compare August 8, 2021 15:19

jonatack force-pushed the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch from afb4eab to 7f7e64e Compare August 8, 2021 16:30

rajarshimaitra reviewed Aug 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

jonatack force-pushed the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch from 3bd7ead to c2d7995 Compare August 8, 2021 18:14

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2021

scripted-diff: Use generate* from TestFramework #22788

Merged

maflcko reviewed Aug 26, 2021

View reviewed changes

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Show resolved Hide resolved

maflcko reviewed Aug 26, 2021

View reviewed changes

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

maflcko reviewed Aug 26, 2021

View reviewed changes

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

test/functional/rpc_rawtransaction.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

jonatack force-pushed the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch from f0aacf0 to d426cab Compare August 31, 2021 14:12

jonatack added 4 commits August 31, 2021 20:51

Test src/node/transaction::GetTransaction() without -txindex

7f07359

refactor: dedup/reorg createrawtransaction sequence number tests

8c19d13

refactor: txid to constant in rpc_rawtransaction to isolate tests

0097740

test: run 2nd getrawtransaction section with/without -txindex

85d8869

(and make the 'string "Flase"' test clearer as requested by reviewers)

jonatack force-pushed the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch from d426cab to adfade6 Compare August 31, 2021 19:42

jonatack added 5 commits August 31, 2021 21:55

test: add and harmonize getrawtransaction logging

14398b3

test: remove no longer needed (ASCII art) comments

d861040

move-only: regroup similar rpc_rawtransaction tests together

409779d

refactor: separate the rpc_rawtransaction tests into functions

7d5cec2

test, refactor: rpc_rawtransaction PEP8

387355b

jonatack force-pushed the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch from adfade6 to 387355b Compare August 31, 2021 20:07

bitcoin deleted a comment from jaysonmald35 Sep 1, 2021

maflcko reviewed Sep 1, 2021

View reviewed changes

maflcko merged commit 7e75400 into bitcoin:master Sep 1, 2021

jonatack deleted the improve-gettransaction-test-coverage branch September 1, 2021 17:39

maflcko reviewed Jan 6, 2022

View reviewed changes

maflcko mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2022

test: MiniWallet: support default from_node for sending/creating txs #24025

Closed

jonatack mentioned this pull request Jan 20, 2022

test, bugfix: fix intermittent failure in getrawtransaction_tests #24113

Merged

jonatack mentioned this pull request May 30, 2022

test: Use MiniWallet in rpc_rawtransaction.py #25044

Merged

bitcoin locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 20, 2023

test, refactor: add GetTransaction() coverage, improve rpc_rawtransaction #22437

test, refactor: add GetTransaction() coverage, improve rpc_rawtransaction #22437

Uh oh!

Conversation

jonatack commented Jul 13, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Jul 13, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Jul 13, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Conflicts

Uh oh!

mjdietzx commented Jul 14, 2021

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Jul 15, 2021

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lsilva01 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rajarshimaitra left a comment • 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!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

practicalswift commented Jul 24, 2021

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Aug 8, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rajarshimaitra left a comment • 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!

jonatack commented Aug 8, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Aug 8, 2021

Uh oh!

fanquake commented Aug 9, 2021

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Aug 24, 2021

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Aug 31, 2021

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Aug 31, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mjdietzx commented Aug 31, 2021

Uh oh!

josibake commented Sep 1, 2021

Uh oh!

maflcko left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

maflcko Jan 6, 2022 • 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!

maflcko Jan 6, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jonatack Jan 6, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jonatack Jan 20, 2022

jonatack commented Jul 13, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jonatack commented Jul 13, 2021 •

edited

Loading

DrahtBot commented Jul 13, 2021 •

edited

Loading

rajarshimaitra left a comment •

edited

Loading

jonatack commented Aug 8, 2021 •

edited

Loading

rajarshimaitra left a comment •

edited

Loading

jonatack commented Aug 8, 2021 •

edited

Loading

jonatack commented Aug 31, 2021 •

edited

Loading

maflcko Jan 6, 2022 •

edited

Loading