[ILM] Policy form should not throw away data #83077

jloleysens · 2020-11-10T16:39:42Z

Summary

The ILM policy UI currently does not preserve unknown settings when serializing the form to the payload that will be sent to ES.

Notes

Given that the ILM policy UI does not cater for all configurations of ILM (e.g., the unfollow action) the following general strategy for ILM policy serialization (i.e., getting ready send back to ES) has been implemented:

Populate form fields with the policy as it is from ES (this is currently how the form works)
When serializing (i.e. getting ready to send back to ES), take the policy we can serialize from fields the UI knows about and merge it with a copy of the original policy -- this takes care of updating any fields we added
Clean up any known fields we removed

This has been implemented using immer and the merge function from lodash. This approach enables imperatively deleteing fields from the serialized object we know should not be included in the serialized output without modifying the original policy object.

How to review

Test loading up some ILM policies and editing them
Take a look at the "Show request" fly out for any irregularities
Look at the tests for what this fix is specifically addressed at
Please provide any feedback about the general approach taken

Checklist

Unit or functional tests were updated or added to match the most common scenarios

elasticmachine · 2020-11-10T16:39:44Z

Pinging @elastic/es-ui (Team:Elasticsearch UI)

cjcenizal

I haven't finished reviewing the code, but I will tomorrow. It's a bit slow going! I think I'm moving slowly because there are many complex conditions and the differences between the original and changed code are fairly subtle.

JL, I think your approach is sound: sanitize the output to ES during serialization by preserving unknown fields and removing known fields. I think I'd feel better about this if we had unit test coverage of serializer.ts that a) comprehensively defines the original expected behavior and b) allows us to verify that this behavior has been preserved and enhanced. We could even split it up into phase-level serialization functions for hot, warm, cold, and delete and add coverage at that level, to make it easier for readers to digest.

I know the client integration tests are passing, which reassures me that we haven't broken the behavior they test. After reading them in depth (which took a few minutes), I was able to associate their assertions with the different conditions in the serialization logic, but I need to go through them again to make sure I haven't missed anything. If we had a set of unit tests that made it easier to match inputs ("when warm phase is disabled") to outputs ("it's excluded from the serialized payload") I think my confidence level would go up that we hadn't broken anything, and maybe make review easier. How do you feel about this?

EDIT: So here's a possibly dumb idea about how we could test the behavior added in this PR. What if we had a test suite that dynamically generated tests that inserted an unknown action/setting in every possible valid location of a policy and verified that it wasn't stripped during serialization? Would this be a simple, focused, understandable way to verify that this code behaves as expected for this class of problem? Here's over-simplified pseudo-code to illustrate what I mean.

const policy = {
  name: 'policy',
  phases: {
    hot: {},
    warm: {},
    cold: {},
    delete: {},
  },
};

const validUnknownValueLocations = [
 '',
 'phases.hot',
 'phases.hot.actions',
 'phases.hot.actions.rollover',
 'phases.hot.actions.set_priority',
 'phases.warm',
 'phases.warm.actions',
 'phases.warm.actions.set_priority',
 // etc
];

validUnknownValueLocations.forEach(location => {
  it(`${location} preserves unknown property`, () => {
    const testPolicy = set(merge({}, policy), location, { unknown: 'unknown' });
    expect(serialize(testPolicy)).toEqual(testPolicy);
  });
});

cjcenizal · 2020-11-11T00:53:36Z

...lugins/index_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer.ts

-  // First copy over all non-allocate and migrate actions.
-  const actions: SerializedActionWithAllocation = { allocate, migrate, ...rest };
+  // First copy over all non-require|include|exclude and migrate actions.
+  const actions: SerializedActionWithAllocation = { ...rest };


I'm a little confused about what's being spread. The type indicates that newActions will only have allocate and migrate optional properties.

export interface SerializedActionWithAllocation { allocate?: AllocateAction; migrate?: MigrateAction; }

So what's being copied over from the spread rest variable? Won't it always be undefined?

EDIT: 💡 Ah ha! Is this the mechanism we use to preserve unexpected properties provided by ES? If so, then I think a combination of comments and test coverage would have made that clearer to me as a first-time reader of the code. I think someone reading this code without the context provided by the PR description would have the same confusion noted above.

cjcenizal · 2020-11-11T01:04:10Z

...lugins/index_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer.ts

@@ -16,8 +20,16 @@ const serializeAllocateAction = (
  originalActions: SerializedActionWithAllocation = {}
 ): SerializedActionWithAllocation => {
  const { allocate, migrate, ...rest } = newActions;
-  // First copy over all non-allocate and migrate actions.
-  const actions: SerializedActionWithAllocation = { allocate, migrate, ...rest };
+  // First copy over all non-require|include|exclude and migrate actions.


What do you think of extracting this logic into a helper function, to encapsulate the operation? That would make it clearer to me what the operation is, and when reading the code I could examine it in isolation.

For example:

/** * Create an actions object with any actions that have been defined by ES but are unknown by the UI. */ const extractUnknownActions = (actions: SerializedActionWithAllocation) => { const { allocate, migrate, ...extractedUnkownActions } = actions; // First copy over all non-allocate and migrate actions. const unknownActions: SerializedActionWithAllocation = { ...extractedUnkownActions }; // The UI only knows about include, exclude and require, so copy over all other values. if (allocate) { const { include, exclude, require, ...extractedUnknownAllocateSettings } = allocate; if (!isEmpty(extractedUnknownAllocateSettings)) { unknownActions.allocate = { ...extractedUnknownAllocateSettings }; } } return unknownActions; }; /* snip */ // line 22 const actions = extractUnknownActions(newActions);

Note that I also reverted the "First copy over all non-require|include|exclude and migrate actions" comment because the phrasing describes logic a few lines down, but not this line, which I found confusing.

cjcenizal · 2020-11-11T01:25:53Z

...lugins/index_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer.ts

      }

-      if (_meta.hot.bestCompression && policy.phases.hot.actions?.forcemerge) {
-        policy.phases.hot.actions.forcemerge.index_codec = 'best_compression';
+      if (!updatedPolicy.phases.hot!.actions?.set_priority && hotPhaseActions.set_priority) {


Seems like this could be simplified to:

if (!updatedPolicy.phases.hot!.actions?.set_priority) { delete hotPhaseActions.set_priority; }

It might be personal preference, but the second condition makes me think I'm missing something when really... the second condition seems irrelevant?

- move serializer function around a little bit - move serialize migrate and allocate function out of serializer file

cjcenizal

Thanks for making those changes, JL! I tried introducing some bugs in the implementation and noticed that the tests didn't catch them. I think we need to increase the unit test coverage, WDYT?

cjcenizal · 2020-11-12T01:09:40Z

..._management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/deserializer_and_serializer.test.ts

+    [
+      '',
+      'phases.hot.actions',
+      'phases.hot.actions.rollover',


Dumb question: is this list intended to be comprehensive? I noticed phases.hot.actions.forcemerge, phases.warm.actions.allocate, phases.delete.actions.wait_for_snapshot, and others like that missing and it made me wonder.

Consider someone reading the serializeMigrateAndAllocateActions code and wanting to understand that behavior -- what can we do with this test to communicate that behavior to them?

Also, do we want to verify that unknown settings on phases.hot (e.g. phases.hot.unknown) and the other phase objects are preserved?

Yeah, I started writing this up and something didn't feel quite right because we would need to update this list in order for the check it is performing to remain thorough and reliable. I opted, instead, for creating a small bit of functionality that populates the entire policy with unknown values at all levels (except for one, but I left a comment about that). Let me know what you think!

cjcenizal · 2020-11-12T01:56:17Z

...c/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer/serialize_migrate_and_allocate_actions.ts

+  const actions: SerializedActionWithAllocation = { ...otherActions };
+
+  // The UI only knows about include, exclude and require, so copy over all other values.
+  if (allocate) {


As a test, I pretended to be someone making changes to this code who didn't understand why we were copying "other actions" which aren't defined by our type system. I commented out lines 24 through 29 and replaced line 21 with:

// Hey, this is more efficient! I guess the original dev was just being extra safe? const actions: SerializedActionWithAllocation = { ...newActions };

All of our tests still passed. I know this is a bit of a contrived example because it's likely someone would catch this change in CR or the dev would (hopefully) ask questions about the code, but if we're able to make this kind of significant implementation change without failing a test then I think there's a gap in the test coverage.

Yeah, this totally makes sense to me to add this coverage! I've added 6 additional test cases for how we might alter the form state, removing a field and how we expect this to come through when serialized.

cjcenizal · 2020-11-12T02:02:36Z

...x_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer/serializer.ts

+        delete warmPhase.actions.shrink;
+      }
+    } else {
+      delete draft.phases.warm;


I commented out this line, and all of our tests still passed.

cjcenizal · 2020-11-12T02:04:47Z

...x_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer/serializer.ts

+        }
+      } else {
+        delete hotPhaseActions.rollover;
+        delete hotPhaseActions.forcemerge;


I was able to comment out this line without a test failure.

cjcenizal · 2020-11-12T02:04:59Z

...x_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer/serializer.ts

+      }
+
+      if (!updatedPolicy.phases.hot!.actions?.set_priority) {
+        delete hotPhaseActions.set_priority;


Same with this line.

cjcenizal · 2020-11-12T02:05:18Z

...x_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer/serializer.ts

+      if (_meta.cold.freezeEnabled) {
+        coldPhase.actions.freeze = {};
+      } else {
+        delete coldPhase.actions.freeze;


This line too.

cjcenizal · 2020-11-12T02:05:22Z

...x_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer/serializer.ts

+        delete coldPhase.actions.set_priority;
+      }
+    } else {
+      delete draft.phases.cold;


This line too.

- removed the "forcemergeEnabled" meta field that was not being used - added test cases for deleting of values from policies

jloleysens · 2020-11-12T10:37:24Z

@cjcenizal Thanks for the review and sharing your thought process! I responded to your comments and made changes that I think address your points. Would you mind taking another look?

jloleysens · 2020-11-12T10:38:21Z

@elasticmachine merge upstream

jloleysens · 2020-11-18T08:06:08Z

@elasticmachine merge upstream

sebelga

I did not test locally the branch and I think @cjcenizal comments on commenting code and tests that keep on passing should be fixed as this is one of a king serializer! 😄

About the implementation (not blocker on this PR): I do find it easier to read this type of code with addition instead of subtraction. So I would read better this

const createSerializer = (originalPolicy) => (updatedPolicy) {
  const outputPolicy = {}; // start empty

  // Warm phase
  if (updatedPolicy.warm.enabled) {
    outputPolicy.warm = deepMerge({}, originalPolicy.warm, updatedPolicy.warm);
    
    // probably just a call to an external function
    serialzeWarmPhase(outputPolicy.warm, {} /* context object if needed */);
  }
  
  // Cold phase
  if (updatedPolicy.cold.enabled) {
    outputPolicy.cold = deepMerge({}, originalPolicy.cold, updatedPolicy.cold);
    serialzeColdPhase(outputPolicy.cold, {} /* context object if needed */);
  }

  return outputPolicy;
};

sebelga · 2020-11-18T08:21:52Z

..._management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/deserializer_and_serializer.test.ts

+ */
+
+import { setAutoFreeze } from 'immer';
+import { cloneDeep } from 'lodash';


Shouldn't we use the lodash.clonedeep package?

I think not after #78156 was merged. We should be importing the entire lodash library now.

Could. Thanks, good to know 👍

cjcenizal

Great work with these tests, JL! They're easy to read, and from reading them I can tell they're comprehensive. Thanks for adding them. I was still able to comment out some lines without any failing tests. I feel a bit like a chaos monkey... it's fun but I'd be surprised you're not annoyed by now! Sorry. 😅 🙈 Could you add tests to cover these?

In terms of preventing regressions, these tests were added as part of the change so we know we're protecting against regressions from this point onwards. How do we know this change doesn't introduce any regressions to the original behavior? From comparing the original code to the new code, the changes to createSerializer appear superficial, so I'm not concerned, but I wanted to ask how you verified this. For example, manual testing or through the existing client integration tests.

I also spotted some logic in createSerializer which doesn't appear to have corresponding logic in the original code. Are these bug fixes? Or am I overlooking something? If they're bug fixes, we need to add appropriate release notes to the PR description and labels to the PR.

I'm approving this to unblock you from merging once you've addressed my questions above. The changes and added code coverage look great over all! 👏

cjcenizal · 2020-11-19T04:12:51Z

..._management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/deserializer_and_serializer.test.ts

+const populateWithUnknownEntries = (v: unknown) => {
+  if (isObject(v)) {
+    for (const key of Object.keys(v)) {
+      if (key === 'require' || key === 'include' || key === 'exclude') continue; // this will generate an invalid policy


Thanks for adding this helpful comment! This might be a bit easier to read (not a blocker though):

if (['require', 'include', 'exclude'].includes(key)) continue;

cjcenizal · 2020-11-19T04:24:32Z

..._management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/deserializer_and_serializer.test.ts

+    formInternal._meta.delete.enabled = false;
+
+    expect(serializer(formInternal)).toEqual({
+      ...policy,


This line makes me read the definition of policy to understand what we're spreading and what will be retained. But it looks like the only thing we're retaining is the name property. I would find this easier to read if we didn't spread, and instead just hardcoded the name. WDYT? Just a suggestion, not a blocker.

expect(serializer(formInternal)).toEqual({ name: 'test', phases: { hot: policy.phases.hot, // We expect to see only the hot phase }, });

cjcenizal · 2020-11-19T04:31:28Z

...x_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer/serializer.ts

+      ) {
+        warmPhase.min_age = `${updatedPolicy.phases.warm!.min_age}${_meta.warm.minAgeUnit}`;
+      } else {
+        delete warmPhase.min_age;


I was able to comment out this line, and the tests still passed.

cjcenizal · 2020-11-19T04:33:52Z

...x_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer/serializer.ts

+      }
+
+      if (!updatedPolicy.phases.warm!.actions?.shrink) {
+        delete warmPhase.actions.shrink;


This line too.

Also, I don't see this corresponding logic in the original createSerializer. Is this newly added in this PR?

It's needed after we changed the strategy of merging with previously set values to ensure that we remove it. Also this work has not been released so we don't need to add fix release note :)

cjcenizal · 2020-11-19T04:34:40Z

...x_lifecycle_management/public/application/sections/edit_policy/form/serializer/serializer.ts

+      }
+
+      if (!updatedPolicy.phases.cold!.actions?.set_priority && coldPhase.actions.set_priority) {
+        delete coldPhase.actions.set_priority;


This line too.

This is another line I don't see corresponding logic for in the original. Is it new?

jloleysens · 2020-11-19T12:11:13Z

@elasticmachine merge upstream

kibanamachine · 2020-11-19T19:39:40Z

💚 Build Succeeded

continuous-integration/kibana-ci/pull-request
Commit: 3e45301

Metrics [docs]

Module Count

Fewer modules leads to a faster build time

id	before	after	diff
`indexLifecycleManagement`	110	112	+2

Async chunks

Total size of all lazy-loaded chunks that will be downloaded as the user navigates the app

id	before	after	diff
`indexLifecycleManagement`	211.0KB	212.4KB	+1.4KB

History

💚 Build #88887 succeeded 263023a
💚 Build #88498 succeeded c33e2b9
💚 Build #87575 succeeded 8c53017
💚 Build #87362 succeeded 79c1536
💚 Build #87146 succeeded 57b7196

To update your PR or re-run it, just comment with:
@elasticmachine merge upstream

* fix ilm policy deserialization * reorder expected jest object to match actual * fix removal of wait for snapshot if it is not on the form * add client integration test for policy serialization of unknown fields * save on a few chars * added unit test for deserializer and serializer * Implement feedback - move serializer function around a little bit - move serialize migrate and allocate function out of serializer file * Updated serialization unit test coverage - removed the "forcemergeEnabled" meta field that was not being used - added test cases for deleting of values from policies * fixed minor issue in how serialization tests are being set up Co-authored-by: Kibana Machine <42973632+kibanamachine@users.noreply.github.com>

* master: (38 commits) [ML] Data frame analytics: Adds functionality to map view (elastic#83710) Add usage collection for savedObject tagging (elastic#83160) [SECURITY_SOLUTION] 145: Advanced Policy Tests (elastic#82898) [APM] Service overview transactions table (elastic#83429) [ML] Fix Single Metric Viewer not loading if job is metric with no partition (elastic#83880) do not export types from 3rd party modules as 'type' (elastic#83803) [Fleet] Allow to send SETTINGS action (elastic#83707) Fixes Failing test: Chrome X-Pack UI Functional Tests.x-pack/test/functional_with_es_ssl/apps/triggers_actions_ui/details·ts - Actions and Triggers app Alert Details Alert Instances renders the active alert instances (elastic#83478) [Uptime]Reduce chart height on monitor detail page (elastic#83777) [APM] Prefer `APIReturnType` over `PromiseReturnType` (elastic#83843) [Observability] Fix telemetry for Observability Overview (elastic#83847) [Alerting] Adds generic UI for the definition of conditions for Action Groups (elastic#83278) ensure workload agg doesnt run until next interval when it fails (elastic#83632) [ILM] Policy form should not throw away data (elastic#83077) [Monitoring] Stop collecting Kibana Usage in bulkUploader (elastic#83546) [TSVB] fix wrong imports (elastic#83798) [APM] Correlations UI POC (elastic#82256) list all the refs in tsconfig.json (elastic#83678) Bump jest (and related packages) to v26.6.3 (elastic#83724) Functional tests - stabilize reporting tests for cloud execution (elastic#83787) ...

* fix ilm policy deserialization * reorder expected jest object to match actual * fix removal of wait for snapshot if it is not on the form * add client integration test for policy serialization of unknown fields * save on a few chars * added unit test for deserializer and serializer * Implement feedback - move serializer function around a little bit - move serialize migrate and allocate function out of serializer file * Updated serialization unit test coverage - removed the "forcemergeEnabled" meta field that was not being used - added test cases for deleting of values from policies * fixed minor issue in how serialization tests are being set up Co-authored-by: Kibana Machine <42973632+kibanamachine@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Kibana Machine <42973632+kibanamachine@users.noreply.github.com>

jloleysens added 4 commits November 10, 2020 16:58

fix ilm policy deserialization

267ffd1

reorder expected jest object to match actual

0991acb

fix removal of wait for snapshot if it is not on the form

c40e650

add client integration test for policy serialization of unknown fields

e141966

jloleysens added Feature:ILM v8.0.0 Team:Kibana Management Dev Tools, Index Management, Upgrade Assistant, ILM, Ingest Node Pipelines, and more release_note:skip Skip the PR/issue when compiling release notes v7.11.0 labels Nov 10, 2020

jloleysens requested review from cjcenizal and sebelga November 10, 2020 16:39

jloleysens requested a review from a team as a code owner November 10, 2020 16:39

save on a few chars

57b7196

cjcenizal reviewed Nov 11, 2020

View reviewed changes

jloleysens added 2 commits November 11, 2020 16:21

added unit test for deserializer and serializer

adf967d

Implement feedback

79c1536

- move serializer function around a little bit - move serialize migrate and allocate function out of serializer file

cjcenizal reviewed Nov 12, 2020

View reviewed changes

jloleysens changed the title ~~[ILM] Policy form does not throw away data~~ [ILM] Policy form should not throw away data Nov 12, 2020

Updated serialization unit test coverage

65ea753

- removed the "forcemergeEnabled" meta field that was not being used - added test cases for deleting of values from policies

Merge branch 'master' into ilm/fix-serializer

8c53017

Merge branch 'master' into ilm/fix-serializer

c33e2b9

sebelga approved these changes Nov 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

cjcenizal approved these changes Nov 19, 2020

View reviewed changes

kibanamachine and others added 2 commits November 19, 2020 07:11

Merge branch 'master' into ilm/fix-serializer

263023a

fixed minor issue in how serialization tests are being set up

3e45301

jloleysens merged commit 6cce212 into elastic:master Nov 20, 2020

jloleysens deleted the ilm/fix-serializer branch November 20, 2020 09:18

jloleysens mentioned this pull request Nov 20, 2020

[7.x] [ILM] Policy form should not throw away data (#83077) #83893

Merged

jloleysens mentioned this pull request Nov 24, 2020

[ILM] Relax POST policy route validation #84203

Merged

jloleysens mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2020

[ILM] Replicas value persists when field is disabled in UI #85226

Closed

alisonelizabeth mentioned this pull request Jan 5, 2021

[ILM] Delete index_codec option if disabled in UI #87267

Merged

yuliacech mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2021

[ILM] Refactor phase serialization logic and add tests #76267

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[ILM] Policy form should not throw away data #83077

[ILM] Policy form should not throw away data #83077

jloleysens commented Nov 10, 2020

elasticmachine commented Nov 10, 2020

cjcenizal left a comment •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 11, 2020

cjcenizal left a comment

cjcenizal Nov 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jloleysens Nov 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 12, 2020

jloleysens Nov 12, 2020

cjcenizal Nov 12, 2020

cjcenizal Nov 12, 2020

cjcenizal Nov 12, 2020

cjcenizal Nov 12, 2020

cjcenizal Nov 12, 2020

jloleysens commented Nov 12, 2020

jloleysens commented Nov 12, 2020

jloleysens commented Nov 18, 2020

sebelga left a comment

sebelga Nov 18, 2020

jloleysens Nov 18, 2020

sebelga Nov 18, 2020

cjcenizal left a comment

cjcenizal Nov 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 19, 2020

cjcenizal Nov 19, 2020

jloleysens Nov 19, 2020

cjcenizal Nov 19, 2020

jloleysens commented Nov 19, 2020

kibanamachine commented Nov 19, 2020

[ILM] Policy form should not throw away data #83077

[ILM] Policy form should not throw away data #83077

Conversation

jloleysens commented Nov 10, 2020

Summary

Notes

How to review

Checklist

elasticmachine commented Nov 10, 2020

cjcenizal left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cjcenizal Nov 11, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cjcenizal Nov 11, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cjcenizal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cjcenizal Nov 12, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jloleysens Nov 12, 2020 • edited Loading

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

jloleysens commented Nov 12, 2020

jloleysens commented Nov 12, 2020

jloleysens commented Nov 18, 2020

sebelga left a 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

cjcenizal left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cjcenizal Nov 19, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cjcenizal Nov 19, 2020 • edited Loading

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

jloleysens commented Nov 19, 2020

kibanamachine commented Nov 19, 2020

💚 Build Succeeded

Metrics [docs]

Module Count

Async chunks

History

cjcenizal left a comment •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jloleysens Nov 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading

cjcenizal Nov 19, 2020 •

edited

Loading