Fix leave option does not appear in group chat thread #40529

nkdengineer · 2024-04-19T04:46:56Z

Details

Fix leave option does not appear in group chat thread

Fixed Issues

$ #39660
PROPOSAL: #39660 (comment)

Tests

Create a group chat
Go to the group chat and send a message
Click on three-dot in the header
Verify that leave option doesn't appear
Reply in thread this message above
Repeat step 3 and verify that leave option appear for group chat thread

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

Same as above

QA Steps

Create a group chat
Go to the group chat and send a message
Click on three-dot in the header
Verify that leave option doesn't appear
Reply in thread this message above
Repeat step 3 and verify that leave option appear for group chat thread

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-04-19.at.11.36.46.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2024-04-19.at.11.35.06.mov

iOS: Native

Screen.Recording.2024-04-19.at.11.37.25.mov

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-04-19.at.11.32.29.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2024-04-19.at.11.29.17.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2024-04-19.at.11.45.12.mov

melvin-bot · 2024-04-19T04:47:13Z

@jjcoffee Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

jjcoffee · 2024-04-19T08:19:11Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g. myBool && <MyComponent />.
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

android-app-2024-04-19_11.36.03.mp4

Android: mWeb Chrome

android-chrome-2024-04-19_11.39.44.mp4

iOS: Native

ios-app-2024-04-19_11.01.27.mp4

iOS: mWeb Safari

ios-safari-2024-04-19_11.05.12.mp4

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

desktop-chrome-2024-04-19_10.24.31.mp4

MacOS: Desktop

desktop-app-2024-04-19_10.27.24.mp4

src/pages/home/HeaderView.tsx

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

jjcoffee · 2024-04-22T14:59:28Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+        return false;
+    }
+
+    return isUserCreatedPolicyRoom(report) || isChatReport(report) || canLeaveRoom(report, !isEmptyObject(policy)) || canLeavePolicyExpenseChat(report, policy);


Why do we check for isChatReport here and not isChatThread?

Did you explore if canLeaveRoom can be left out here? On the face of it, it seems like it shouldn't be here 😄

I agree. Let's get rid of all the canLeaveWhatever logic and just clearly document all the reasons we can leave or join (even if we have to repeat some stuff). I think that will be much less confusing.

Why do we check for isChatReport here and not isChatThread?

You're right, that is my mistake when I bring the logic from HeaderView into util.

I agree. Let's get rid of all the canLeaveWhatever logic and just clearly document all the reasons we can leave or join (even if we have to repeat some stuff). I think that will be much less confusing.

In fact, we will only be able to join a chat if we can leave it. If we have left the room, then its notification is hidden, the join option will appear, and vice versa. That is the reason we have the canLeave... condition here.

@jjcoffee @marcaaron What do you think if I update the canJoinChat like this

/** * Whether the user can join a report * - We can leave the chat * - The chat isn't a thread of a whisper action * - The user left the chat (the notification of its is hidden) */ function canJoinChat(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, parentReportAction: OnyxEntry<ReportAction>, policy: OnyxEntry<Policy>): boolean { if (ReportActionsUtils.isWhisperAction(parentReportAction)) { return false; } if (report?.notificationPreference !== CONST.REPORT.NOTIFICATION_PREFERENCE.HIDDEN) { return false; } return canLeaveChat(report, policy); }

I would suggest renaming canLeavePolicyExpenseChat to isNonAdminOrOwnerOfPolicyExpenseChat().

I also find this method a bit weird:

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 5261 to 5278 in 9a727de

function canLeaveRoom(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, isPolicyEmployee: boolean): boolean {

if (!report?.visibility) {

if (

report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_ADMINS ||

report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_ANNOUNCE ||

report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_EXPENSE_CHAT ||

report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.DOMAIN_ALL ||

report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.SELF_DM ||

!report?.chatType

) {

// DM chats don't have a chatType

return false;

}

} else if (isPublicAnnounceRoom(report) && isPolicyEmployee) {

return false;

}

return true;

}

It has a default of true. But aren't there specific types of reports we can leave? We should check if it's one of them. Instead we are checking if it's NOT one of the rooms we "can't" leave.

I bet once we figure out what those are then the logic is much simpler and we might not even need a canLeaveRoom() method at all.

I would suggest renaming canLeavePolicyExpenseChat to isNonAdminOrOwnerOfPolicyExpenseChat().

I checked this function and agree isNonAdminOrOwnerOfPolicyExpenseChat is good, it's what we do in this function.

I bet once we figure out what those are then the logic is much simpler and we might not even need a canLeaveRoom() method at all.

@marcaaron canLeaveRoom function just updated the case for invoice room, I think we can keep this logic as it is now. WDYT?

@marcaaron Here's the latest canLeaveRoom for context. I'm starting to wonder if it's better to open a separate issue to tidy up the overall logic here 😅

That being said, the core issue here seems to be that 95% of canLeaveRoom is actually "is the room of a type that we can join or leave" with "is this a room we can leave" tacked on. Unless there are cases where you can leave a room, but not join again? (Unlikely, but maybe I've missed something!)

Does it then make sense to clear things up a bit by creating a separate method, canChangeRoomSubscription or something, and then we just call that in both canLeaveRoom and canJoinRoom (along with notificationPreference checks)? (Though I realise this is almost going back to what we had before with canLeaveOrJoinRoom 😄)

I'd love if we could stick with the current plan and do the tidying here. More bugs and confusion will arise from this if we don't make an effort to improve what we've got.

jjcoffee

Tests well! Just a few questions to clarify.

marcaaron

Similar thoughts to @jjcoffee.

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

marcaaron · 2024-04-22T22:46:39Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+        return false;
+    }
+
+    return isUserCreatedPolicyRoom(report) || isChatReport(report) || canLeaveRoom(report, !isEmptyObject(policy)) || canLeavePolicyExpenseChat(report, policy);


I agree. Let's get rid of all the canLeaveWhatever logic and just clearly document all the reasons we can leave or join (even if we have to repeat some stuff). I think that will be much less confusing.

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

marcaaron

Thanks seems like we are getting closer. Let's get this one done! 🙇

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

marcaaron · 2024-04-25T18:25:44Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+        return false;
+    }
+
+    return isUserCreatedPolicyRoom(report) || isChatReport(report) || canLeaveRoom(report, !isEmptyObject(policy)) || canLeavePolicyExpenseChat(report, policy);


I would suggest renaming canLeavePolicyExpenseChat to isNonAdminOrOwnerOfPolicyExpenseChat().

I also find this method a bit weird:

App/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

Lines 5261 to 5278 in 9a727de

function canLeaveRoom(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, isPolicyEmployee: boolean): boolean {

if (!report?.visibility) {

if (

report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_ADMINS ||

report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_ANNOUNCE ||

report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_EXPENSE_CHAT ||

report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.DOMAIN_ALL ||

report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.SELF_DM ||

!report?.chatType

) {

// DM chats don't have a chatType

return false;

}

} else if (isPublicAnnounceRoom(report) && isPolicyEmployee) {

return false;

}

return true;

}

It has a default of true. But aren't there specific types of reports we can leave? We should check if it's one of them. Instead we are checking if it's NOT one of the rooms we "can't" leave.

I bet once we figure out what those are then the logic is much simpler and we might not even need a canLeaveRoom() method at all.

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

jjcoffee · 2024-04-30T10:06:40Z

@nkdengineer Friendly bump to address the outstanding comments, please!

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

marcaaron · 2024-05-01T19:04:02Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+        return false;
+    }
+
+    if (isRootGroupChat(report) || isSelfDM(report)) {


Can we add a comment here like:

Anyone viewing these chat types is already a participant and therefore cannot join

marcaaron · 2024-05-01T19:13:38Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+        return false;
+    }
+
+    return isChatReport(report) || canLeaveRoom(report, !isEmptyObject(policy)) || isNonAdminOrOwnerOfPolicyExpenseChat(report, policy);


I still think we should get rid of canLeaveRoom()? It's a bit of a mess.

The process I'd take here is to analyze the current code and figure out what conditions would make a chat "joinable" and what conditions would make a chat "leaveable". Actually someone did it here:

https://github.com/Expensify/App/blame/573d9893ae2a8e6e4ebe64088cb2fbf62ce81804/src/libs/ReportUtils.ts#L5478-L5487

So we can go down that list and find what is also true for "join" and then add it to this method instead...

Several of the options say "Nobody can leave". Do we need to consider those cases here? Probably not, because our method is returning true at the end.

I would also recommend the structure we are using here for both methods i.e. return early for any disqualifying conditions then return the qualifying conditions at the end.

@marcaaron After checking canLeaveRoom function again, I think we can remove this function like this

For invoice room case, we can create a separate function canJoinOrLeaveInvoiceRoom

For other cases in this function, because only POLICY_ROOM chat type has report.visibility and all other chat types can't leave room as description of this function, we can earlier return false if the report is policyAnnounce room and the user the policy member.

After refactoring, we can remove canLeaveRoom function and canLeaveChat function will be like this

function canLeaveChat(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, policy: OnyxEntry<Policy>): boolean { if (isSelfDM(report) || isRootGroupChat(report)) { return false; } if (isPublicAnnounceRoom(report) && !isEmptyObject(policy)) { return false; } if (canJoinOrLeaveInvoiceRoom(report)) { return true; } return (isChatThread(report) && !!report?.notificationPreference?.length) || isUserCreatedPolicyRoom(report) || isNonAdminOrOwnerOfPolicyExpenseChat(report, policy); }

cc @jjcoffee

Sorry, can you just apply whatever changes you think we should apply and I will review them in the context of the greater PR review?

At first glance... I'm not really loving the canJoinOrLeaveInvoiceRoom() here. It's not clear to me what case someone can "join" an invoice room, but makes sense that we would not allow someone to leave one.

jjcoffee · 2024-05-03T14:39:02Z

@nkdengineer Is this ready for re-review/retesting?

nkdengineer · 2024-05-03T16:27:58Z

@jjcoffee Waiting for @marcaaron to share the thoughts on this comment #40529 (comment)

marcaaron · 2024-05-03T21:03:43Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+/**
+ * Invoice sender, invoice receiver and auto-invited admins cannot leave
+ */
+function canJoinOrLeaveInvoiceRoom(report: OnyxEntry<Report>): boolean {


I like that this has been moved. But confused about why we need to consider it for the "join" case.

Can we actually join an invoice room? What state are things in when we do that? Maybe an example would help.

P.S. if we are doing this you have a lot of duplicate code happening below that needs to be moved.

@marcaaron I checked again and you're right, we don't have the "join" case for invoice room. Updated the function.

marcaaron · 2024-05-03T21:07:11Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+        return false;
+    }
+
+    return isChatReport(report) || canLeaveRoom(report, !isEmptyObject(policy)) || isNonAdminOrOwnerOfPolicyExpenseChat(report, policy);


Sorry, can you just apply whatever changes you think we should apply and I will review them in the context of the greater PR review?

At first glance... I'm not really loving the canJoinOrLeaveInvoiceRoom() here. It's not clear to me what case someone can "join" an invoice room, but makes sense that we would not allow someone to leave one.

jjcoffee

I'm going OOO, back next Tuesday 14th so I'm provisionally approving for now (it looks like things are roughly on the right track) in case @marcaaron you want to merge whilst I'm away. Happy to re-review and retest when I'm back though!

marcaaron · 2024-05-06T22:28:20Z

I'm going OOO, back next Tuesday 14th so I'm provisionally approving for now (it looks like things are roughly on the right track) in case @marcaaron you want to merge whilst I'm away. Happy to re-review and retest when I'm back though!

@jjcoffee Oh, hmm, let's get another C+ to cover for you? There are changes pushed so we should have someone re-testing this. Did you re-test before you approved?

marcaaron

Looks much better. Thanks for the changes here.

OSBotify · 2024-05-15T10:12:36Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/marcaaron in version: 1.4.74-0 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

OSBotify · 2024-05-22T23:57:36Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/chiragsalian in version: 1.4.74-6 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅

situchan · 2024-07-24T19:01:02Z

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts

+/**
+ * Whether the user can leave a report
+ */
+function canLeaveChat(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, policy: OnyxEntry<Policy>): boolean {


Leave chat doesn't make sense for anonymous users since they haven't actually joined.
Issue: #43404

Fix leave option does not appear in group chat thread

d7eedc7

nkdengineer marked this pull request as ready for review April 19, 2024 04:47

nkdengineer requested a review from a team as a code owner April 19, 2024 04:47

melvin-bot bot requested review from jjcoffee and removed request for a team April 19, 2024 04:47

nkdengineer mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2024

[Awaiting Payment 29th May] Threads - There is no Leave thread option on group Chat threads #39660

Closed

6 tasks

jjcoffee reviewed Apr 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/pages/home/HeaderView.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

nkdengineer added 3 commits April 22, 2024 17:26

Merge branch 'main' into fix/39660

f2adb93

create canLeaveReport and canJoinReport util

10f3079

renam function

1ce4e9f

jjcoffee reviewed Apr 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

jjcoffee reviewed Apr 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

jjcoffee suggested changes Apr 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron requested changes Apr 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into fix/39660

9e2db78

marcaaron reviewed Apr 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

nkdengineer added 6 commits April 24, 2024 14:11

Merge branch 'main' into fix/39660

212dcf0

rename function

6f130b3

add selfDM check

9baf84c

add explain comment

ccf3030

Merge branch 'main' into fix/39660

0a7e601

add explain comment for whisper check

7299772

marcaaron requested changes Apr 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

nkdengineer added 2 commits April 26, 2024 17:19

Merge branch 'main' into fix/39660

53323da

remove unnecessary check

31ed70b

jjcoffee reviewed Apr 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

src/libs/ReportUtils.ts Show resolved Hide resolved

Merge branch 'main' into fix/39660

9b01946

add explain comment for isRootGroupChat function

f656e9c

marcaaron assigned nkdengineer May 1, 2024

marcaaron requested changes May 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

nkdengineer added 5 commits May 2, 2024 12:07

Merge branch 'main' into fix/39660

c08fec1

remove canLeaveRoom function

5ed6873

fix lint

403bd4a

edit the comment

c81ccf3

add comment

8346da5

marcaaron reviewed May 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

nkdengineer added 2 commits May 4, 2024 14:52

merge main

8407f6d

rename function

535848c

jjcoffee approved these changes May 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron previously approved these changes May 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

merge main

03f51ea

nkdengineer dismissed marcaaron’s stale review via 03f51ea May 9, 2024 08:43

marcaaron approved these changes May 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

marcaaron merged commit ec5b686 into Expensify:main May 13, 2024
16 checks passed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request May 15, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-05-15 #42185

Closed

situchan reviewed Jul 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

situchan mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-07-24] [$250] Public room - User is able to leave public room when user is not logged in #43404

Closed

6 tasks

CyberAndrii mentioned this pull request Sep 20, 2024

Expense - Leave option doesn't appear on invitee to a IOU thread #49529

Closed

6 tasks

	function canLeaveRoom(report: OnyxEntry<Report>, isPolicyEmployee: boolean): boolean {
	if (!report?.visibility) {
	if (
	report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_ADMINS \|\|
	report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_ANNOUNCE \|\|
	report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.POLICY_EXPENSE_CHAT \|\|
	report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.DOMAIN_ALL \|\|
	report?.chatType === CONST.REPORT.CHAT_TYPE.SELF_DM \|\|
	!report?.chatType
	) {
	// DM chats don't have a chatType
	return false;
	}
	} else if (isPublicAnnounceRoom(report) && isPolicyEmployee) {
	return false;
	}
	return true;
	}

Fix leave option does not appear in group chat thread #40529

Fix leave option does not appear in group chat thread #40529

Conversation

nkdengineer commented Apr 19, 2024

Details

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

melvin-bot bot commented Apr 19, 2024

jjcoffee commented Apr 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jjcoffee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jjcoffee commented Apr 30, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron May 3, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jjcoffee commented May 3, 2024

nkdengineer commented May 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron May 3, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jjcoffee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

marcaaron commented May 6, 2024

marcaaron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented May 15, 2024

OSBotify commented May 22, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jjcoffee commented Apr 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcaaron May 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

marcaaron May 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading