Leave pending-delete rows out of the selected-reports check by MelvinBot · Pull Request #100513 · Expensify/App

MelvinBot · 2026-09-07T13:02:00Z

Explanation of Change

Why this is the cause, and not a stale search snapshot

The first hypothesis was that the offline optimistic delete leaves a stale transaction count or total in the search snapshot. That is not what happens:

canMergeReports and isMoneyRequestReportEligibleForMerge never read total, nonReimbursableTotal, transactionCount, or any transaction list.
The offline delete writes no snapshot keys at all — DeleteMoneyRequest.ts only touches TRANSACTION, TRANSACTION_VIOLATIONS, REPORT, and REPORT_ACTIONS.

The divergence is in the selection layer, which is what this PR changes. This also explains the "only appears after opening the report" half of the report: once the deleted transaction leaves the row's transaction list, the old every() check passes again and the option returns.

Related observations, deliberately left out of scope

Two things noticed while tracing this that are not changed here, to keep the deploy-blocker fix minimal:

useSearchBulkActions.ts:2433 hard-disables Merge reports whenever areAllMatchingItemsSelected is set, so selecting via the header select-all also hides it. That may well be intentional, since an "all matching" selection is unbounded.
The same gate reads currentSearchResults directly rather than the searchResults fallback used elsewhere in that hook.

Worth a follow-up decision, but neither is required to unblock the deploy.

Fixed Issues

$ #100502
PROPOSAL: #100502 (comment)

AI Tests

Run by MelvinBot on this branch. This section records automated checks only — it is not a substitute for the human Tests and QA Steps sections below.

Check	Result
`npm test -- --silent tests/unit/Search tests/ui/GroupHeaderTest.tsx`	✅ 50 suites, 1513 tests passed
`npm run typecheck`	✅ passed
`npm run lint-changed`	✅ passed
`npm run spell-changed`	✅ 2 files, 0 issues
Browser verification of the fix	❌ could not run — see below

The new unit tests were confirmed to actually catch the bug: with the one-line source change reverted, 3 of the 6 cases in deriveSelectedReportsTest.ts fail; with it applied, all 6 pass.

Not verified in a browser. The attempt to drive the offline repro against this branch was blocked by an unrelated environment failure — the test session's page rendered blank (0 accessibility nodes, no network activity) for the whole run, while the dev server itself compiled cleanly. The behavioural fix therefore rests on unit-test and code evidence, not on a live run. The original bug was reproduced live on main before this change (evidence), so the repro steps are known-good and worth re-running by hand.

npm run lint, npm test (full suite), and npm run storybook -- --smoke-test --ci were not run — the Search suites above cover every consumer of the changed function, and no component or story was touched.

Tests

Log into newdot with an expensify/expensifail account
Go to workspace chat.
Create a report with two expenses.
Create another report with one expense.
Go offline.
Open the report with two expenses and delete one of the expenses.
Go to Spend > Reports.
Bulk select both expenses.
Click dropdown button.
Confirm merge reports option is shown.

Expected Result:

In Step 9, Merge reports option will be shown when selecting both reports with same status.

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

None

QA Steps

Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

A report whose rows are selected via the group checkbox never gets a selection entry for a row queued for deletion, so requiring every row to be selected dropped the report from selectedReports. That hid bulk actions gated on the report count -- Merge reports among them -- after an offline expense delete. Derive the check from the selectable rows instead, matching getGroupCheckboxState. Co-authored-by: Alberto Gonzalez-Cela <Gonals@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-09-07T13:03:11Z

⚠️ A setup step failed before I could start. This is usually a temporary issue — try again in a few minutes, and if it persists post in #melvinbot-ai.

Run details

MelvinBot · 2026-09-07T13:19:33Z

🤖 Web test steps verification results: ✅ pass

On dev NewDot web, after deleting one expense from a 2-expense report while offline, selecting both draft reports in Spend > Reports still shows Merge reports in the bulk-action dropdown, and it correctly disappears when only one report is selected — confirming the fix.

Step	Status
Create a report with two expenses in a workspace chat Created a workspace and, in its expense chat, an "Expense Report 2026-09-07" containing Coffee Shop ($10.00) and Taxi Ride ($25.00), total $35.00.	✅
Create a second report with one expense A second "Expense Report 2026-09-07" was created in the same workspace chat with a single Lunch Place ($15.00) expense.	✅
Go offline Enabled Account > Preferences > Troubleshoot > "Force offline"; the app status bar showed "You appear to be offline."	✅
Open the two-expense report and delete one expense (shows as pending delete) Selected the Taxi Ride row and deleted it via the bulk-action "Delete" + confirmation. The row stayed visible with strikethrough text ($25.00 struck through) and the report total updated to $10.00 while offline.	✅
Go to Spend > Reports and bulk-select both reports In Spend > Reports, checked both report row checkboxes; header showed "2 selected" with both row checkboxes checked (rows for the $15.00 and $10.00 reports).	✅
Open the dropdown and verify `Merge reports` IS shown Dropdown for "2 selected" listed: Merge reports, Export, Download as PDF, Duplicate reports, Delete — `Merge reports` is present despite the report holding the pending-delete row.	✅
Select only one report and verify `Merge reports` is NOT shown Unchecked the $10.00 report, leaving "1 selected". The dropdown then listed only: Export, Download as PDF, Split, Duplicate report, Delete — no `Merge reports`.	✅
Verify that no errors appear The web harness has no direct browser-console inspection, so this was checked via the network dump (all ~60 recent requests returned 200, no failed responses) and via full-page snapshots throughout the flow, which never showed a RedBox, error banner, or crash screen. A literal JS console check still needs a human pass.	✅

view run · no recording available

melvin-bot · 2026-09-09T13:46:07Z

@situchan @dmkt9 One of you needs to 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]

MelvinBot · 2026-09-09T13:52:29Z

Nothing to fix — every code check passes. The one failing check just needs a human approval.

Check independent approval fails with:

Expensify/App#100513 does not have enough independent eligible reviewer approvals.
  approvers: [],
  independentApprovers: [],

The PR has zero reviews so far (dmkt9, situchan, dylanexpensify, joekaufmanexpensify are requested). This check passes once an eligible reviewer approves — no code change can make it green, so I haven't pushed anything.

Full check status

All other checks on the latest run are green, including the ones most likely to catch a problem with this change:

Check	Result
`test (jobs 1–8)`	✅ pass
`typecheck`	✅ pass
`ESLint check`	✅ pass
`Oxfmt check`	✅ pass
`Storybook tests`	✅ pass
`Bun tests`	✅ pass
`spellcheck`	✅ pass
`Compare knip issues against main`	✅ pass
`Check for unused styles`	✅ pass
`React Compiler Compliance`	✅ pass
`baseline-perf-tests` / `branch-perf-tests`	✅ pass
`build (developmentDebug, false)` — Android	✅ pass
`build (New Expensify Dev, DebugDevelopment, false)` — iOS	✅ pass
`codecov/patch`, `codecov/project`	✅ pass

An earlier run also failed PR Author Checklist, but that one is green on the current commit.

One unrelated thing worth correcting while you're in here: the Tests section contradicts itself. Step 10 says "Confirm merge reports option is not shown", but the Expected Result right below says the option will be shown. The fix restores the option, so step 10 is the wrong one.

view run · view recording

dylanexpensify

Steps make sense, looks good from a product pov

Gonals · 2026-09-15T11:00:12Z

bump @situchan @dmkt9

melvin-bot · 2026-09-15T11:01:20Z

@Gonals 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]

MelvinBot · 2026-09-15T11:44:19Z

The failing checks are not caused by this PR — main is broken. Nothing to push here.

#100881 merged to main at 11:04 UTC and left a duplicate variable declaration in InboxTabSelector.tsx. shouldUseNarrowLayout is destructured twice in the same function body, at line 40 and line 47 — exactly the two lines the compiler names:

src/pages/inbox/sidebar/InboxTabSelector.tsx(40,12): error TS2451: Cannot redeclare block-scoped variable 'shouldUseNarrowLayout'.
src/pages/inbox/sidebar/InboxTabSelector.tsx(47,12): error TS2451: Cannot redeclare block-scoped variable 'shouldUseNarrowLayout'.

The fix belongs on main, not on this branch: delete the redundant declaration on line 47 (line 40 already provides it), or revert #100881. shawnborton authored it. No fix or revert PR is open yet, so every open PR is currently blocked.

Why this is main and not this PR — evidence

This PR changes two files: src/components/Search/selectionBuilders.ts and tests/unit/Search/deriveSelectedReportsTest.ts. InboxTabSelector.tsx is not among them, and neither is anything the four failing test suites touch.

The file is clean at this PR's head. At 460ec04, grep finds one shouldUseNarrowLayout destructure. On origin/main (ad2bdf1) it finds two.
CI tests the PR merged into main. The pull_request event builds the merge commit, which is how a breakage the branch never contained shows up in this PR's checks.
The same four suites fail on an unrelated branch. refactor-02/66378 fails tests/ui/PaginationTest.tsx, tests/ui/UnreadIndicatorsTest.tsx, tests/ui/GroupChatNameTests.tsx, and tests/ui/SessionTest.tsx in the same jobs 4, 7, and 8 (run). Several other branches began failing right after the 11:04 merge.
The tests pass locally on this branch alone. npm test -- --silent tests/ui/PaginationTest.tsx → 3 passed. The duplicate declaration throws when the module is evaluated, so the sidebar never renders, which is why these LHN tests report Unable to find an element with testID: 1 rather than a syntax error.

checklist and Check independent approval also show red; both are the usual human-gate checks, not code failures.

The displayAmount typecheck failure I fixed in 460ec04 is resolved — it no longer appears in the latest run, which reports only the InboxTabSelector errors. Once main is fixed, this PR should go green on a re-run without further changes.

MelvinBot · 2026-09-15T11:54:29Z

Nothing left to fix on this PR — main is broken. Every remaining failure comes from a duplicate variable declaration in src/pages/inbox/sidebar/InboxTabSelector.tsx:40-47, a file this PR never touches:

src/pages/inbox/sidebar/InboxTabSelector.tsx(47,12): error TS2451: Cannot redeclare block-scoped variable 'shouldUseNarrowLayout'.

const {shouldUseNarrowLayout} = useResponsiveLayout(); appears twice in the same function body, so the file fails to parse. That one error accounts for all four non-ignorable failing checks: typecheck, ESLint check, and test jobs 4, 7, and 8.

A fix is already open: #101195. Once it merges, re-run the checks here — no change to this branch is needed.

The typecheck failure I fixed earlier (460ec04) is resolved; it no longer appears in the log.

How I confirmed it's main and not this PR

The bad line is on main, not on this branch. The branch head is 460ec04 — my displayAmount commit — with no newer merge. The duplicate exists at origin/main (c85bcf4). CI runs the PR head merged into base, so this branch inherits it.

It came from a silent bad merge, not from either side's code. The merge commit ad2bdf1 (merge of #100881) has two declarations, but each of its parents has exactly one:

Commit	Declarations
`50b3c85` (base parent)	1, at line 40
`fa1af59` (branch parent)	1, at line 42
`ad2bdf1` (the merge)	2, at lines 40 and 47

Both sides added the same line at slightly different offsets, so Git kept both without reporting a conflict.

The failing tests are all sidebar-rendering UI tests, none of them Search: tests/ui/PaginationTest.tsx, tests/ui/UnreadIndicatorsTest.tsx, tests/ui/GroupChatNameTests.tsx, tests/ui/SessionTest.tsx. Each fails with the same Babel parse error on that file. This PR's own suite passes — I ran npm test -- --silent tests/unit/Search tests/unit/hooks/useSearchBulkActionsTest.ts locally at 460ec04: 53 suites, 1647 tests passed, and npm run typecheck passed cleanly.

Check independent approval and checklist are also red, but those are the standard human-gated checks, not code failures.

I did not push anything, since fixing an unrelated file from this branch would mix a main repair into a deploy-blocker PR.

situchan · 2026-09-25T19:03:23Z

Lots of checks failing. Please merge main

situchan · 2026-09-25T19:45:40Z

@MelvinBot assign me

MelvinBot · 2026-09-25T19:49:35Z

Done, situchan. I added you as an assignee on this PR.

view run

situchan · 2026-09-25T19:49:54Z

@MelvinBot pull main

…flineDelete Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-09-25T19:57:43Z

I merged the latest main into this branch and pushed it as merge commit cf18000d9a6. The branch was 4,453 commits behind, and the merge had no conflicts. CI will now run on the updated branch.

view run

situchan · 2026-09-25T19:58:13Z

@codex review

situchan · 2026-09-25T19:58:17Z

@MelvinBot review

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: cf18000d9a

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-09-25T20:02:19Z

+}
+
+describe('deriveSelectedReports', () => {
+    it('includes a report whose every transaction is selected', () => {


Document every added test with Given/When/Then sections

The six new test cases omit the required // Given, // When, and // Then comments explaining why each scenario is covered; the lone comment in the pending-delete case does not provide all three sections. Add those sections to every case so future maintainers retain the required behavioral context.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L3-L3

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Fixed in 531a3a2. Each of the six cases now has // Given, // When, and // Then comments that explain why the case exists.

view run

MelvinBot · 2026-09-25T20:02:24Z

The fix looks correct, and I found no logic bugs. Two small items need attention before merge: the new tests lack the required Given/When/Then comments, and the Tests steps contradict themselves.

The change is sound. selectionBuilders.ts:339-343 now skips pending-delete rows. That matches how the rest of Search already treats them:

Selecting a group never writes an entry for a pending-delete row (SearchWriteActionsProvider.tsx:672). The old every() check required that missing entry, so it dropped the report.
The group checkbox uses the same rule, including "all rows pending delete means not selected" (selectionBuilders.ts:419-441).

CI is green after the main merge. Only Check independent approval fails, and that needs a reviewer approval.

Please fix:

Test comments. tests/README.md requires // Given, // When, // Then comments in every test case. None of the six cases in deriveSelectedReportsTest.ts:60-124 have them.
Tests section. Step 10 says "Confirm merge reports option is not shown." The Expected Result says it will be shown. Step 10 should say it is shown. The QA steps say "Same as tests," so they carry the same error.

Out of scope, not blocking

deriveSelectedReports still ignores areAllMatchingItemsSelected and whole-group keys when a report has loaded rows. That behavior existed before this PR, and the PR description already flags the related Merge reports gate as a follow-up.

MelvinBot · 2026-09-25T20:14:41Z

I found no functional regressions. The four side effects below only happen offline, while a report has a pending-delete expense. None of them block the merge.

Possible regressions

Delete can do nothing (rare edge case). Take a report whose expenses are all pending delete, where the reconcile effect already wrote selection entries for those rows (SearchWriteActionsProvider.tsx:202-227). That happens after "select all matching", or when you keep a selection while deleting every expense in the side panel. Before this PR, the report counted as selected and Delete removed the empty report. Now the new selectableTransactions.length > 0 guard drops it from selectedReports, but the rows stay selected. Delete still shows, but it only loops over selectedReportIDs, so it does nothing (useSearchBulkActions.ts:1348-1366).
"Download receipts (N)" counts too many. The count includes pending-delete expenses in selected reports (useSearchBulkActions.ts:2800-2802). Clicking it offline only opens the offline modal.
The Pay label can show the wrong amount. When a report is selected, the label adds up report totals (Search.ts:2487-2490). The offline delete lowers the report total, except when the deleted expense uses a different currency than the report. In that case the label still includes the deleted amount. Paying offline is blocked.
The Delete check sees pending-delete rows. shouldShowDeleteOption collects each report's transactions without skipping pending-delete ones. A report with one card expense that can't be deleted, plus one pending-delete expense, no longer counts as a single-transaction report. That skips the card block in ReportUtils.ts:3277-3279. This check was already wrong; this PR makes the case reachable.

My read: none of these block the merge. Item 1 is the only behavior change. The PR's test excludes a report whose transactions are all pending delete asserts that behavior on purpose, so you should confirm it's what you want.

I checked these by reading the code. I didn't run them in the app.

Checked and not a problem

Approve and Submit are hidden offline. Pay, Export, and PDF open the offline modal.
Merge and Duplicate report skip pending-delete expenses (SearchReportsMergeReports.tsx:78, Duplicate.ts:1529).
Hold and Move use the selected expenses, not selectedReports.
Failed deletes set pendingAction back to null, so a row is never stuck as pending delete (DeleteMoneyRequest.ts:899-903).
Checkbox state now matches selectedReports. getGroupCheckboxState already skipped pending-delete rows. Before this PR, the checkbox showed checked while the report was missing from selectedReports.
Side benefit: that mismatch also caused silent partial actions before this PR. For example, "Delete 2 reports?" deleted only one, and Pay or Merge could skip the report with the pending-delete expense.

view run

situchan · 2026-09-25T20:15:42Z

@MelvinBot address #100513 (comment), #100513 (comment)

Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-09-25T20:22:04Z

situchan, I addressed both items:

Test comments: Each of the six cases in deriveSelectedReportsTest.ts now has // Given, // When, and // Then comments (531a3a2).
Tests section: Step 10 now says "Confirm merge reports option is shown." This matches the Expected Result. QA steps say "Same as tests," so they are fixed too.

The commit only adds comments, and no code changed. I could not run Jest or lint on it in this environment, so CI will do that check.

view run

situchan · 2026-10-09T19:17:17Z

@MelvinBot pull main

…flineDelete Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-10-09T19:26:19Z

I merged the latest main into this branch and pushed it (b6dfba1a07). There were no conflicts.

view run

MelvinBot · 2026-10-09T19:34:49Z

No code fix is needed. The only failing check is Check independent approval. It fails because this PR doesn't have an independent approving review yet, so a reviewer's approval will clear it.

All code checks on b6dfba1a07 pass, including Jest, TypeScript, ESLint, and Reassure. The three remote native builds were still pending when I checked.

view run

situchan · 2026-10-19T14:24:57Z

@MelvinBot pull main

…flineDelete Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-10-19T14:34:14Z

I merged the latest main into this branch and pushed it in e5c17c9. The merge had no conflicts. The branch was 3,061 commits behind main.

view run

MelvinBot · 2026-10-19T14:34:46Z

⚠️ MelvinBot CI Fix Loop Detected

MelvinBot has made 5 consecutive commits trying to fix CI failures. Automatic CI fix dispatches are now paused for this PR.

Next steps: A human should review the recent commits and resolve the conflicting CI errors manually.

Gonals · 2026-10-23T13:39:55Z

@MelvinBot fix lint errors

…flineDelete Co-authored-by: Alberto Gonzalez-Cela <Gonals@users.noreply.github.com>

MelvinBot · 2026-10-23T13:49:08Z

Fixed the failing ESLint check by merging main into this branch.

The only lint error was in src/libs/Navigation/types.ts, which this PR doesn't touch: Unused eslint-disable directive (no problems were reported from 'max-lines'). That directive is already gone on main, so the merge fixes it. The PR diff is still only selectionBuilders.ts and its test.

npm run lint passes locally on both PR files and types.ts. The Check independent approval failure is expected and needs a reviewer approval, not a code fix.

view run

situchan · 2026-10-23T15:11:20Z

@Gonals this might require another engineer to merge since you're co-authored

MelvinBot assigned Gonals Sep 7, 2026

MelvinBot requested a review from a team September 7, 2026 13:02

melvin-bot Bot added Melvin-Test-Android Melvin-Test-Web Triggers Melvin to run the testing steps of the PR on web labels Sep 7, 2026

MelvinBot mentioned this pull request Sep 7, 2026

[$175] Spend - Merge reports option only appears after opening report with deleted expense #100502

Open

2 of 7 tasks

Gonals added 2 commits September 9, 2026 15:41

Merge branch 'main' into claude-mergeReportsOfflineDelete

b40ca5c

remove uneeded comment

e2c011f

Gonals marked this pull request as ready for review September 9, 2026 13:45

Gonals requested a review from a team as a code owner September 9, 2026 13:46

melvin-bot Bot requested review from a team, dmkt9, dylanexpensify and situchan and removed request for a team September 9, 2026 13:46

melvin-bot Bot requested review from joekaufmanexpensify and removed request for a team September 9, 2026 13:46

dylanexpensify previously approved these changes Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

joekaufmanexpensify removed their request for review September 9, 2026 17:16

Merge branch 'main' into claude-mergeReportsOfflineDelete

2915155

Gonals requested a review from a team as a code owner September 15, 2026 11:01

melvin-bot Bot requested a review from Gonals September 15, 2026 11:01

melvin-bot Bot removed the request for review from a team September 15, 2026 11:01

MelvinBot assigned situchan Sep 25, 2026

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude-mergeReportsOf…

cf18000

…flineDelete Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Sep 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

Add Given/When/Then comments to deriveSelectedReports tests

531a3a2

Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude-mergeReportsOf…

b6dfba1

…flineDelete Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude-mergeReportsOf…

e5c17c9

…flineDelete Co-authored-by: Situ Chandra Shil <situchan@users.noreply.github.com>

situchan approved these changes Oct 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into claude-mergeReportsOf…

f6f627e

…flineDelete Co-authored-by: Alberto Gonzalez-Cela <Gonals@users.noreply.github.com>

Conversation

MelvinBot commented Sep 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

AI Tests

Tests

Expected Result:

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 7, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dylanexpensify left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Gonals commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 15, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot Sep 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot Sep 25, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 25, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 9, 2026

Uh oh!

situchan commented Oct 19, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 19, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Oct 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Gonals commented Oct 23, 2026

Uh oh!

MelvinBot commented Sep 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

MelvinBot commented Sep 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

MelvinBot commented Sep 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading