[SPARK-31707][SQL] Revert SPARK-30098 Use default datasource as provider for CREATE TABLE syntax #28517

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:13:37Z

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This patch effectively reverts SPARK-30098 via below changes:

Removed the config
Removed the changes done in parser rule
Removed the usage of config in tests
- Removed tests which depend on the config
- Rolled back some tests to before SPARK-30098 which were affected by SPARK-30098
Reflect the change into docs (migration doc, create table syntax)

Why are the changes needed?

SPARK-30098 brought confusion and frustration on using create table DDL query, and we agreed about the bad effect on the change.

Please go through the discussion thread to see the details.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No, compared to Spark 2.4.x. End users tried to experiment with Spark 3.0.0 previews will see the change that the behavior is going back to Spark 2.4.x, but I believe we won't guarantee compatibility in preview releases.

How was this patch tested?

Existing UTs.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:14:46Z

sql/catalyst/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/parser/DDLParserSuite.scala

@@ -2195,22 +2195,4 @@ class DDLParserSuite extends AnalysisTest {
      parsePlan("COMMENT ON TABLE a.b.c IS 'xYz'"),
      CommentOnTable(UnresolvedTable(Seq("a", "b", "c")), "xYz"))
  }
-


It didn't exist before SPARK-30098, and this test depends on SPARK-30098.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:14:56Z

sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/connector/DataSourceV2SQLSuite.scala

@@ -256,24 +256,6 @@ class DataSourceV2SQLSuite
    checkAnswer(spark.internalCreateDataFrame(rdd, table.schema), Seq.empty)
  }

-  test("CreateTable: without USING clause") {


It didn't exist before SPARK-30098, and this test depends on SPARK-30098.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:15:02Z

sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/connector/DataSourceV2SQLSuite.scala

@@ -681,24 +663,6 @@ class DataSourceV2SQLSuite
    }
  }

-  test("CreateTableAsSelect: without USING clause") {


It didn't exist before SPARK-30098, and this test depends on SPARK-30098.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:16:13Z

sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/command/DDLParserSuite.scala

@@ -76,12 +75,6 @@ class DDLParserSuite extends AnalysisTest with SharedSparkSession {
    }.head
  }

-  private def withCreateTableStatement(sql: String)(prediction: CreateTableStatement => Unit)


This is to check with DSV2 but Hive create table syntax doesn't follow the path. That said, it didn't exist before SPARK-30098.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:17:04Z

sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/command/DDLParserSuite.scala

@@ -40,8 +40,7 @@ import org.apache.spark.sql.test.SharedSparkSession
 import org.apache.spark.sql.types.{IntegerType, StructField, StructType}


All of the changes in this test suite are simply done via reverting back to pre-SPARK-30098.

Ref: https://github.com/apache/spark/blame/c1a5f94973213b1cad15388f3ef8a488424c34a7/sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/command/DDLParserSuite.scala

I had to remove the line assert(desc.viewDefaultDatabase.isEmpty) as desc.viewDefaultDatabase no longer exists. I hope it is expected.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:17:54Z

...ompatibility/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/hive/execution/HiveCompatibilitySuite.scala

@@ -42,7 +42,6 @@ class HiveCompatibilitySuite extends HiveQueryFileTest with BeforeAndAfter {
  private val originalInMemoryPartitionPruning = TestHive.conf.inMemoryPartitionPruning
  private val originalCrossJoinEnabled = TestHive.conf.crossJoinEnabled
  private val originalSessionLocalTimeZone = TestHive.conf.sessionLocalTimeZone
-  private val originalCreateHiveTable = TestHive.conf.createHiveTableByDefaultEnabled


Effectively no-op.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:18:01Z

sql/hive/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/hive/HiveShowCreateTableSuite.scala

@@ -25,22 +25,6 @@ import org.apache.spark.sql.internal.{HiveSerDe, SQLConf}

 class HiveShowCreateTableSuite extends ShowCreateTableSuite with TestHiveSingleton {

-  private var origCreateHiveTableConfig = false


Effectively no-op.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:18:10Z

sql/hive/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/hive/execution/HiveSerDeSuite.scala

@@ -87,8 +87,7 @@ class HiveSerDeSuite extends HiveComparisonTest with PlanTest with BeforeAndAfte
    SQLConf.withExistingConf(TestHive.conf)(super.withSQLConf(pairs: _*)(f))

  test("Test the default fileformat for Hive-serde tables") {
-    withSQLConf("hive.default.fileformat" -> "orc",


Effectively no-op.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:18:14Z

sql/hive/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/hive/execution/HiveSerDeSuite.scala

@@ -97,8 +96,7 @@ class HiveSerDeSuite extends HiveComparisonTest with PlanTest with BeforeAndAfte
      assert(desc.storage.serde == Some("org.apache.hadoop.hive.ql.io.orc.OrcSerde"))
    }

-    withSQLConf("hive.default.fileformat" -> "parquet",


Effectively no-op.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:18:36Z

sql/hive/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/hive/execution/HiveDDLSuite.scala

@@ -2706,33 +2706,6 @@ class HiveDDLSuite
    }
  }

-  test("SPARK-30098: create table without provider should " +


It didn't exist before SPARK-30098, and this test depends on SPARK-30098.

These two tests are depending on the config, hence I'd rather not restore these tests.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:36:14Z

I'd like to see this be applied to branch-3.0, and even master branch, so that we don't leave any bad state in any branches.

This would require the PR of "unified create table syntax" (#28026) be rebased, but I don't expect we will merge the PR which contains the changes of +1,661 -1,146 lines, so I don't think it matters to us. Once there's a consensus on the direction of #28026 then we'd probably like to break down the PR into multiple PRs.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:46:41Z

sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/adaptive/AdaptiveQueryExecSuite.scala

@@ -944,7 +944,7 @@ class AdaptiveQueryExecSuite
    withSQLConf(SQLConf.ADAPTIVE_EXECUTION_ENABLED.key -> "true",
      SQLConf.ADAPTIVE_EXECUTION_FORCE_APPLY.key -> "true") {
      withTable("t1") {
-        val plan = sql("CREATE TABLE t1 AS SELECT 1 col").queryExecution.executedPlan
+        val plan = sql("CREATE TABLE t1 USING parquet AS SELECT 1 col").queryExecution.executedPlan


This test fails with below error message:

org.apache.spark.sql.AnalysisException: Hive support is required to CREATE Hive TABLE (AS SELECT);; 'CreateTable `t1`, org.apache.hadoop.hive.serde2.lazy.LazySimpleSerDe, ErrorIfExists +- Project [1 AS col#545614] +- OneRowRelation

This test initially assumed the create table without USING is following native syntax, and it's no longer valid. Added USING parquet explicitly.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-12T23:46:55Z

sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/adaptive/AdaptiveQueryExecSuite.scala

@@ -1005,7 +1005,7 @@ class AdaptiveQueryExecSuite
        }
        spark.sparkContext.addSparkListener(listener)
        try {
-          sql("CREATE TABLE t1 AS SELECT 1 col").collect()
+          sql("CREATE TABLE t1 USING parquet AS SELECT 1 col").collect()


SparkQA · 2020-05-13T01:31:15Z

Test build #122567 has finished for PR 28517 at commit 41d88ad.

This patch fails Spark unit tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-13T01:48:25Z

Build failure on #122567 is expected - two tests failed which are same as the latest build failure from #28500.

I think #122568 would not fail for two tests as I fixed them. Let's see.

cloud-fan · 2020-05-13T03:28:20Z

just a reminder: we need to add back the removed test when we unify the CREATE TABLE syntax.

SparkQA · 2020-05-13T05:45:52Z

Test build #122568 has finished for PR 28517 at commit 081866e.

This patch passes all tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-13T06:20:45Z

cc. @cloud-fan @gatorsmile @rdblue @Ngone51

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-13T06:21:52Z

Uh, also cc. to @dongjoon-hyun as he tried this first (though the approach was different) and I'm borrowing the JIRA issue here. (Would like to reopen the JIRA issue if we agree to merge this.)

dongjoon-hyun · 2020-05-13T06:29:50Z

Thank you for pinging me. Unfortunately, I thought the decision was permanent at that time and closed it. So, Apache Spark JIRA policy doesn't allow us reopen SPARK-31136 technically. It's the same for all members (contributor and committer and PMC). Please use a new JIRA issue.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-13T06:31:32Z

Ah OK. That was closed and cannot be reopened. I also wondered why there's no reopen button and I thought it requires privileges. Looks like that's not the case. Thanks for letting me know.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-13T06:33:18Z

I'll file a new issue when we decide to merge this - as the discussion is on the way and someone might not agree about the resolution.

cloud-fan · 2020-05-13T14:27:35Z

can you create a new ticket? I'm fine with this PR.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-13T20:10:35Z

Thanks! Filed a new issue SPARK-31707 and updated the title.

cloud-fan · 2020-05-14T13:29:58Z

sql/catalyst/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/parser/DDLParserSuite.scala

@@ -2195,22 +2195,4 @@ class DDLParserSuite extends AnalysisTest {
      parsePlan("COMMENT ON TABLE a.b.c IS 'xYz'"),
      CommentOnTable(UnresolvedTable(Seq("a", "b", "c")), "xYz"))
  }
-
-  test("create table - without using") {


after a second thought, can we keep the test but ignore it? We still need these tests after the syntax unification is done. We can add a comment to reference the JIRA ticket.

same for other removed tests.

Yes. +1 for @cloud-fan 's suggestion. (ignoring tests instead of removal).

It's straightforward for removed tests - I'll do that.

What about the tests being reverted as Hive create table is not integrated with DSv2?
(I'm referring sql/core/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/command/DDLParserSuite.scala)
I guess they still need to be reverted instead of ignore.

+1. Maybe ignoring tests and add TODO comments to them is better.

It cannot be simply changed to "ignore" instead of "test" as we're removing the config. I'll comment out instead.

So, just remove the conf after revert?

Sorry but could you please elaborate? Removing config is what this patch proposed, and it's a part of revert.

I think he meant to remove withSQLConf(SQLConf.LEGACY_CREATE_HIVE_TABLE_BY_DEFAULT_ENABLED.key -> "false"). We don't need the config anyway, if we unify the syntax.

Yeah I see. That's one of valid approaches and good idea. Maybe then we need to remove some tests which depend on the config (two tests for on and off).

Ngone51 · 2020-05-15T03:30:08Z

docs/sql-ref-syntax-ddl-create-table-datasource.md

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ CREATE TABLE [ IF NOT EXISTS ] table_identifier
    [ AS select_statement ]
 ```

-Note that, the clauses between the USING clause and the AS SELECT clause can come in
+Note that, the clauses between the OPTIONS clause and the AS SELECT clause can come in


Should still be USING since OPTIONS itself can also come in any order?

between is more likely be inclusive, otherwise previous statement was also wrong.

between the USING clause and the AS SELECT clause

USING and AS SELECT are both not included, so this is still corrected. We shouldn't change it.

Ah OK my bad. I found USING shouldn't com in any order so previous statement was correct. Sorry about that.

Ngone51 · 2020-05-15T03:31:47Z

sql/catalyst/src/test/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/catalyst/parser/DDLParserSuite.scala

@@ -2195,22 +2195,4 @@ class DDLParserSuite extends AnalysisTest {
      parsePlan("COMMENT ON TABLE a.b.c IS 'xYz'"),
      CommentOnTable(UnresolvedTable(Seq("a", "b", "c")), "xYz"))
  }
-
-  test("create table - without using") {


So, just remove the conf after revert?

SparkQA · 2020-05-15T07:05:02Z

Test build #122649 has finished for PR 28517 at commit 84c172f.

This patch fails due to an unknown error code, -9.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-15T07:46:28Z

retest this, please

SparkQA · 2020-05-15T12:11:39Z

Test build #122658 has finished for PR 28517 at commit 84c172f.

This patch fails Spark unit tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-15T12:29:55Z

The test failure comes from HiveExternalCatalogVersionsSuite - Unable to download Spark 2.3.4.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-15T12:34:12Z

retest this, please

SparkQA · 2020-05-15T14:44:11Z

Test build #5040 has started for PR 28517 at commit 84c172f.

SparkQA · 2020-05-15T15:58:32Z

Test build #122676 has finished for PR 28517 at commit 84c172f.

This patch fails Spark unit tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

SparkQA · 2020-05-15T17:44:47Z

Test build #5041 has finished for PR 28517 at commit 84c172f.

This patch fails Spark unit tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

SparkQA · 2020-05-15T19:18:31Z

Test build #5039 has finished for PR 28517 at commit 84c172f.

This patch fails Spark unit tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-16T01:21:14Z

retest this, please

SparkQA · 2020-05-16T07:05:03Z

Test build #122696 has finished for PR 28517 at commit 84c172f.

This patch fails due to an unknown error code, -9.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-16T07:22:11Z

retest this, please

SparkQA · 2020-05-16T13:51:05Z

Test build #122721 has finished for PR 28517 at commit 84c172f.

This patch passes all tests.
This patch merges cleanly.
This patch adds no public classes.

### What changes were proposed in this pull request? It's quite annoying to be blocked by flaky tests in several PRs. This PR disables them. The tests come from 3 PRs I'm recently watching: #28526 #28463 #28517 ### Why are the changes needed? To make PR builder more stable ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes #28547 from cloud-fan/test. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>

### What changes were proposed in this pull request? It's quite annoying to be blocked by flaky tests in several PRs. This PR disables them. The tests come from 3 PRs I'm recently watching: #28526 #28463 #28517 ### Why are the changes needed? To make PR builder more stable ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? no ### How was this patch tested? N/A Closes #28547 from cloud-fan/test. Authored-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org> (cherry picked from commit 2012d58) Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dongjoon@apache.org>

…der for CREATE TABLE syntax ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This patch effectively reverts SPARK-30098 via below changes: * Removed the config * Removed the changes done in parser rule * Removed the usage of config in tests * Removed tests which depend on the config * Rolled back some tests to before SPARK-30098 which were affected by SPARK-30098 * Reflect the change into docs (migration doc, create table syntax) ### Why are the changes needed? SPARK-30098 brought confusion and frustration on using create table DDL query, and we agreed about the bad effect on the change. Please go through the [discussion thread](http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Resolve-ambiguous-parser-rule-between-two-quot-create-table-quot-s-td29051i20.html) to see the details. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No, compared to Spark 2.4.x. End users tried to experiment with Spark 3.0.0 previews will see the change that the behavior is going back to Spark 2.4.x, but I believe we won't guarantee compatibility in preview releases. ### How was this patch tested? Existing UTs. Closes #28517 from HeartSaVioR/revert-SPARK-30098. Authored-by: Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) <kabhwan.opensource@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com> (cherry picked from commit d2bec5e) Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>

cloud-fan · 2020-05-17T02:27:51Z

thanks, merging to master/3.0!

HeartSaVioR · 2020-05-17T12:52:54Z

Thanks all for reviewing and merging!

… `false` by default ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to switch `spark.sql.legacy.createHiveTableByDefault` to `false` by default in order to move away from this legacy behavior from `Apache Spark 4.0.0` while the legacy functionality will be preserved during Apache Spark 4.x period by setting `spark.sql.legacy.createHiveTableByDefault=true`. ### Why are the changes needed? Historically, this behavior change was merged at `Apache Spark 3.0.0` activity in SPARK-30098 and reverted officially during the `3.0.0 RC` period. - 2019-12-06: #26736 (58be82a) - 2019-12-06: https://lists.apache.org/thread/g90dz1og1zt4rr5h091rn1zqo50y759j - 2020-05-16: #28517 At `Apache Spark 3.1.0`, we had another discussion and defined it as `Legacy` behavior via a new configuration by reusing the JIRA ID, SPARK-30098. - 2020-12-01: https://lists.apache.org/thread/8c8k1jk61pzlcosz3mxo4rkj5l23r204 - 2020-12-03: #30554 Last year, this was proposed again twice and `Apache Spark 4.0.0` is a good time to make a decision for Apache Spark future direction. - SPARK-42603 on 2023-02-27 as an independent idea. - SPARK-46122 on 2023-11-27 as a part of Apache Spark 4.0.0 idea ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes, the migration document is updated. ### How was this patch tested? Pass the CIs with the adjusted test cases. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes #46207 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-46122. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>

… `false` by default ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR aims to switch `spark.sql.legacy.createHiveTableByDefault` to `false` by default in order to move away from this legacy behavior from `Apache Spark 4.0.0` while the legacy functionality will be preserved during Apache Spark 4.x period by setting `spark.sql.legacy.createHiveTableByDefault=true`. ### Why are the changes needed? Historically, this behavior change was merged at `Apache Spark 3.0.0` activity in SPARK-30098 and reverted officially during the `3.0.0 RC` period. - 2019-12-06: apache#26736 (58be82a) - 2019-12-06: https://lists.apache.org/thread/g90dz1og1zt4rr5h091rn1zqo50y759j - 2020-05-16: apache#28517 At `Apache Spark 3.1.0`, we had another discussion and defined it as `Legacy` behavior via a new configuration by reusing the JIRA ID, SPARK-30098. - 2020-12-01: https://lists.apache.org/thread/8c8k1jk61pzlcosz3mxo4rkj5l23r204 - 2020-12-03: apache#30554 Last year, this was proposed again twice and `Apache Spark 4.0.0` is a good time to make a decision for Apache Spark future direction. - SPARK-42603 on 2023-02-27 as an independent idea. - SPARK-46122 on 2023-11-27 as a part of Apache Spark 4.0.0 idea ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? Yes, the migration document is updated. ### How was this patch tested? Pass the CIs with the adjusted test cases. ### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling? No. Closes apache#46207 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-46122. Authored-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com> Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>

probot-autolabeler bot added DOCS SQL labels May 12, 2020

HeartSaVioR commented May 12, 2020

View reviewed changes

HeartSaVioR changed the title ~~[SPARK-31136][SQL] Revert SPARK-30098 Use default datasource as provider for CREATE TABLE syntax~~ [SPARK-XXXXX][SQL] Revert SPARK-30098 Use default datasource as provider for CREATE TABLE syntax May 13, 2020

HeartSaVioR changed the title ~~[SPARK-XXXXX][SQL] Revert SPARK-30098 Use default datasource as provider for CREATE TABLE syntax~~ [SPARK-31707][SQL] Revert SPARK-30098 Use default datasource as provider for CREATE TABLE syntax May 13, 2020

cloud-fan reviewed May 14, 2020

View reviewed changes

HeartSaVioR added 4 commits May 15, 2020 11:56

WIP Revert SPARK-30098... still retain the flag field

a641886

Revert SPARK-30098 - just also removed the field as well

4f82115

Also revert the doc as well

4cb2cc4

Fix tests which are affected by the changes

8141aed

Ngone51 reviewed May 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

Fix my bad on doc, restore tests and mark as ignore

84c172f

HeartSaVioR force-pushed the revert-SPARK-30098 branch from 081866e to 84c172f Compare May 15, 2020 05:20

cloud-fan approved these changes May 15, 2020

View reviewed changes

cloud-fan mentioned this pull request May 15, 2020

[SPARK-31732][TESTS] Disable some flaky tests temporarily #28547

Closed

cloud-fan closed this in d2bec5e May 17, 2020

HeartSaVioR deleted the revert-SPARK-30098 branch May 17, 2020 12:52

dongjoon-hyun mentioned this pull request May 17, 2020

[SPARK-31682][SQL] Turn on spark.sql.legacy.createHiveTableByDefault.enabled by default #28500

Closed

dongjoon-hyun mentioned this pull request Apr 24, 2024

[SPARK-46122][SQL] Set spark.sql.legacy.createHiveTableByDefault to false by default #46207

Closed

		@@ -40,8 +40,7 @@ import org.apache.spark.sql.test.SharedSparkSession
		import org.apache.spark.sql.types.{IntegerType, StructField, StructType}

		@@ -25,22 +25,6 @@ import org.apache.spark.sql.internal.{HiveSerDe, SQLConf}

		class HiveShowCreateTableSuite extends ShowCreateTableSuite with TestHiveSingleton {

		private var origCreateHiveTableConfig = false

[SPARK-31707][SQL] Revert SPARK-30098 Use default datasource as provider for CREATE TABLE syntax #28517

[SPARK-31707][SQL] Revert SPARK-30098 Use default datasource as provider for CREATE TABLE syntax #28517

Uh oh!

Conversation

HeartSaVioR commented May 12, 2020

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Why are the changes needed?

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

How was this patch tested?

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!

HeartSaVioR May 13, 2020 • 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!

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!

HeartSaVioR commented May 12, 2020

Uh oh!

HeartSaVioR May 12, 2020 • 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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented May 13, 2020

Uh oh!

HeartSaVioR commented May 13, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cloud-fan commented May 13, 2020

Uh oh!

SparkQA commented May 13, 2020

Uh oh!

HeartSaVioR commented May 13, 2020

Uh oh!

HeartSaVioR commented May 13, 2020

Uh oh!

dongjoon-hyun commented May 13, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

HeartSaVioR commented May 13, 2020

Uh oh!

HeartSaVioR commented May 13, 2020

Uh oh!

cloud-fan commented May 13, 2020

Uh oh!

HeartSaVioR commented May 13, 2020

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dongjoon-hyun May 14, 2020 • 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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

HeartSaVioR May 13, 2020 •

edited

Loading

HeartSaVioR May 12, 2020 •

edited

Loading

HeartSaVioR commented May 13, 2020 •

edited

Loading

dongjoon-hyun commented May 13, 2020 •

edited

Loading

dongjoon-hyun May 14, 2020 •

edited

Loading

cloud-fan May 15, 2020 •

edited

Loading