Extensions: misc checks on receiver parameter and extension members #77937

jcouv · 2025-04-01T11:28:20Z

check extension parameter (like this parameter in classic extension method)
checks for parameters of async and iterator methods include the extension parameter
init disallowed
certain modifiers disallowed
instance members and parameter modifiers disallowed if the receiver parameter is unnamed
reserve "extension"

Corresponding spec update: dotnet/csharplang#9274

Relates to test plan #76130

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T20:40:26Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/SymbolExtensions.cs

+        internal static bool IsExtensionParameterImplementation(this ParameterSymbol parameter)
+        {
+            return parameter.ContainingSymbol is SourceExtensionImplementationMethodSymbol implementationMethod
+                && parameter.Ordinal == 0;


parameter.Ordinal == 0

I think this condition is insufficient and will lead to an incorrect result for static extension methods #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T20:44:18Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/ExecutableCodeBinder.cs

                {
-                    diagnostics.Add(ErrorCode.ERR_BadIteratorArgType, parameter.GetFirstLocation());
+                    var location = isReceiverParameter
+                        ? ((MethodDeclarationSyntax)iterator.GetNonNullSyntaxNode()).Identifier.GetLocation()


((MethodDeclarationSyntax)iterator.GetNonNullSyntaxNode()).Identifier.GetLocation()

Wouldn't simply requesting location from iterator work? #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T20:49:39Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolution.cs


            hasAnyRefOmittedArgument = false;

            bool isNewExtensionMember = member.GetIsNewExtensionMember();


bool isNewExtensionMember = member.GetIsNewExtensionMember();

Consider moving declaration closer to usage #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T20:50:04Z

            if (member.GetIsNewExtensionMember())

isNewExtensionMember? #Closed

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolution.cs:3890 in 9fe5bae. [](commit_id = 9fe5bae, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T20:51:59Z

...s/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Semantics/OverloadResolution/OverloadResolution_ArgsToParameters.cs

            Debug.Assert((object)symbol != null);
            Debug.Assert(arguments != null);

            bool isNewExtensionMember = symbol.GetIsNewExtensionMember();


bool isNewExtensionMember = symbol.GetIsNewExtensionMember();

It looks like the local is no longer used #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T20:56:21Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/SymbolExtensions.cs

+
+        internal static bool IsExtensionParameterImplementation(this ParameterSymbol parameter)
+        {
+            return parameter.ContainingSymbol is SourceExtensionImplementationMethodSymbol implementationMethod


parameter

It looks like we are making an assumption that this method is always called on a definition. Consider asserting the fact. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T21:08:50Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Extensions/SynthesizedExtensionMarker.cs

+                    else if (parameterRefKind is RefKind.In or RefKind.RefReadOnlyParameter && parameterType.TypeKind != TypeKind.Struct)
+                    {
+                        diagnostics.Add(ErrorCode.ERR_InExtensionParameterMustBeValueType, parameterTypeSyntax);
+                    }


I think it would be desirable to try sharing logic with ExtensionMethodChecks in order to avoid an accidental diverging #Closed

I agree and I tried that initially, but the logic for these three checks in ExtensionMethodChecks uses locations and also the name of the method

Consider leaving a comment in both places saying that we should keep them in sync.

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T21:10:33Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/AsyncRewriter/AsyncRewriter.AsyncIteratorRewriter.cs

                _disposeModeField = F.StateMachineField(boolType, GeneratedNames.MakeDisposeModeFieldName());

-                if (_isEnumerable && this.method.Parameters.Any(static p => p.IsSourceParameterWithEnumeratorCancellationAttribute()))
+                if (_isEnumerable && this.method.Parameters.Any(static p => !p.IsExtensionParameterImplementation() && p.HasEnumeratorCancellationAttribute))


!p.IsExtensionParameterImplementation()

It is not obvious why extension parameter is getting special treatment #Closed

Do you mean we should leave a comment here (the attribute is ignored on extension parameter) or do you mean you think the attribute should be effective on the extension parameter too?

The reason I don't think the attribute should be effective is that this attribute is very specific to async-iterator method implementations. I don't think it belongs on an extension parameter, as the extension block may contain many kinds of members. Also, the scenario where you need an async-iterator extension method on a CancellationToken receiver seems very niche to say the least.

I don't think it belongs on an extension parameter

I am fine with this design decision, Could you please mention this explicitly in the speclet?

Also, please make sure to test scenario where extension parameter implementation is the only parameter for the method.

Sounds good. Linked to corresponding spec update.
The test ReceiverParameterValidation_CancellationTokenParameter_Instance shows that the attribute doesn't have an effect (it includes another parameter, but I think that's fine)

it includes another parameter, but I think that's fine

Are you saying the CancellationToken parameter doesn't have to be the last parameter in a general case?

That's correct. The only restriction is that only one parameter may be marked with this attribute.

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T21:24:22Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourcePropertySymbolBase.cs

            }
+            else if (ContainingType is { IsExtension: true, ExtensionParameter: { Name: "" } } && !IsStatic)
+            {
+                diagnostics.Add(ErrorCode.ERR_InstanceMemberWithUnnamedExtensionsParameter, location, Name);


Name

Will the name work for an indexer? #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T21:27:25Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Wrapped/WrappedParameterSymbol.cs

            get { return _underlyingParameter.RefCustomModifiers; }
        }

+        internal sealed override bool HasEnumeratorCancellationAttribute


internal sealed override bool HasEnumeratorCancellationAttribute

I think we should override this property only in leaves #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T21:51:14Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs

    }

+    [Fact]
+    public void Member_InstanceIndexer_Metadata()


Member_InstanceIndexer_Metadata

It feels like this test isn't very useful right now. At least in the form that uses IL. I think we can compile an indexer declaration to metadata. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T21:55:38Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Extensions/SynthesizedExtensionMarker.cs

+                        diagnostics.Add(ErrorCode.ERR_InExtensionParameterMustBeValueType, parameterTypeSyntax);
+                    }
+
+                    if (parameter.Name is "" && parameterRefKind != RefKind.None)


parameterRefKind != RefKind.None

Should scoped be disallowed as well? #Closed

Yes, but that's currently a parsing error. See ReceiverParameterValidation_UnnamedReceiverParameter_Scoped, which has a comment for follow-up

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T22:02:05Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs

    extension(ref MyCollection c)
    {
-        public void Add(int i) { System.Console.Write("ran "); c = null; }
+        public void Add(int i) { System.Console.Write("ran "); c = new MyCollection() { field = 42 }; }


42

i? #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T22:17:44Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs

+""";
+        var comp = CreateCompilation(source, targetFramework: TargetFramework.Net90);
+        comp.VerifyDiagnostics(
+            // (7,16): warning CS8424: The EnumeratorCancellationAttribute applied to parameter 'token1' will have no effect. The attribute is only effective on a parameter of type CancellationToken in an async-iterator method returning IAsyncEnumerable


warning CS8424: The EnumeratorCancellationAttribute applied to parameter 'token1' will have no effect.

Is this warning misleading and likely incorrect in a general case? #Closed

The warning is correct for the current design/implementation. See detailed explanation in other response

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T22:21:04Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs

+    }
+
+    [Fact]
+    public void ReceiverParameterValidation_UnnamedReceiverParameter()


ReceiverParameterValidation_UnnamedReceiverParameter

Consider testing indexers as well #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-01T22:23:37Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs

+    }
+
+    [Fact]
+    public void Validation_Modifiers_Abstract()


Validation_Modifiers_Abstract

Consider testing indexers as well #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-02T13:15:39Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/SymbolExtensions.cs

+
+        internal static bool IsExtensionParameterImplementation(this ParameterSymbol parameter)
+        {
+            Debug.Assert(parameter.ContainingSymbol.IsDefinition);


parameter.ContainingSymbol.IsDefinition

Debug.Assert(parameter.IsDefinition);? #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-02T13:23:22Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs

+            // (5,22): error CS0751: A partial member must be declared within a partial type
+            //         partial void M();
+            Diagnostic(ErrorCode.ERR_PartialMemberOnlyInPartialClass, "M").WithLocation(5, 22),
+            // (6,22): error CS0751: A partial member must be declared within a partial type


error CS0751: A partial member must be declared within a partial type

Do we understand why this error is reported twice for methods and only once for properties/indexers? #Closed

This is an existing behavior. There's a difference between properties and methods in that regard.

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-02T13:29:33Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/SymbolExtensions.cs

+        {
+            Debug.Assert(parameter.ContainingSymbol.IsDefinition);
+            return parameter.ContainingSymbol is SourceExtensionImplementationMethodSymbol implementationMethod
+                && !implementationMethod.UnderlyingMethod.IsStatic


&& !implementationMethod.UnderlyingMethod.IsStatic

It looks like this fix was not covered by a corresponding test. Was it not possible to observe the incorrect behavior without a direct API test? #Closed

Will add a test

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-02T13:31:51Z

Done with review pass (commit 4)

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-02T13:46:39Z

docs/compilers/CSharp/Compiler Breaking Changes - DotNet 10.md


 ## `extension` treated as a contextual keyword

-PROTOTYPE record which version this break is introduced in


PROTOTYPE

Shouldn't one be able to use this word? #Closed

Not in the main branch

AlekseyTs

LGTM (commit 7)

AlekseyTs · 2025-04-02T16:38:50Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs

+""";
+        var comp = CreateCompilation(source, targetFramework: TargetFramework.Net90);
+        comp.VerifyDiagnostics(
+            // (7,16): warning CS8424: The EnumeratorCancellationAttribute applied to parameter 'token1' will have no effect. The attribute is only effective on a parameter of type CancellationToken in an async-iterator method returning IAsyncEnumerable


warning CS8424: The EnumeratorCancellationAttribute applied to parameter 'token1' will have no effect.

Given the speclet wording "The receiver parameter may not have an [EnumeratorCancellation] attribute." I would expect an error instead. #Resolved

Thanks. I'll fix the spec

jcouv · 2025-04-02T16:39:48Z

@jjonescz for second review. Thanks

jjonescz · 2025-04-03T06:50:36Z

docs/compilers/CSharp/Compiler Breaking Changes - DotNet 10.md


-PROTOTYPE record which version this break is introduced in
-
+***Introduced in Visual Studio 2022 version 17.4.*** 


Is this change part of this PR? Then it should be probably 17.15. If it was already merged, then 17.14.

Suggested change

***Introduced in Visual Studio 2022 version 17.4.***

***Introduced in Visual Studio 2022 version 17.14.***

``` #Resolved

jjonescz · 2025-04-03T07:00:09Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/ExecutableCodeBinder.cs


-            foreach (var parameter in iterator.Parameters)
+            var parameters = !iterator.IsStatic
+                ? iterator.GetParametersIncludingExtensionParameter()


Should the GetParametersIncludingExtensionParameter helper check that the member is not static? #Resolved

That would not be convenient. That method is also used in overload resolution, and for the purpose of overload resolution, we do want to account for the extension parameter even when the method is static (the static receiver counts as an argument in that case).

jjonescz · 2025-04-03T07:06:57Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Extensions/SynthesizedExtensionMarker.cs

+                    else if (parameterRefKind is RefKind.In or RefKind.RefReadOnlyParameter && parameterType.TypeKind != TypeKind.Struct)
+                    {
+                        diagnostics.Add(ErrorCode.ERR_InExtensionParameterMustBeValueType, parameterTypeSyntax);
+                    }


Consider leaving a comment in both places saying that we should keep them in sync.

jjonescz · 2025-04-03T07:10:53Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceOrdinaryMethodSymbol.cs

            {
                diagnostics.Add(AccessCheck.GetProtectedMemberInSealedTypeError(ContainingType), location, this);
            }
+            else if (ContainingType is { IsExtension: true, ExtensionParameter: { Name: "" } } && !IsStatic)


nit: this can be simplified

Suggested change

else if (ContainingType is { IsExtension: true, ExtensionParameter: { Name: "" } } && !IsStatic)

else if (ContainingType is { IsExtension: true, ExtensionParameter.Name: "" } && !IsStatic)

``` #Resolved

ExtensionParameter can be null even when IsExtension is true. That happens when the extension parameter is __arglist.

Yes, but the pattern would handle nulls right?

Ah, you're right. I'll update

jjonescz · 2025-04-03T07:11:58Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourcePropertySymbolBase.cs

            {
                diagnostics.Add(AccessCheck.GetProtectedMemberInSealedTypeError(ContainingType), location, this);
            }
+            else if (ContainingType is { IsExtension: true, ExtensionParameter: { Name: "" } } && !IsStatic)


Suggested change

else if (ContainingType is { IsExtension: true, ExtensionParameter: { Name: "" } } && !IsStatic)

else if (ContainingType is { IsExtension: true, ExtensionParameter.Name: "" } && !IsStatic)

``` #Resolved

jjonescz · 2025-04-03T07:13:20Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Symbols/Source/SourceMethodSymbol.cs

        internal void ReportAsyncParameterErrors(BindingDiagnosticBag diagnostics, Location location)
        {
-            foreach (var parameter in Parameters)
+            var parameters = !this.IsStatic ? this.GetParametersIncludingExtensionParameter() : Parameters;


This could be also simplified if we checked IsStatic inside GetParametersIncludingExtensionParameter. #ByDesign

jjonescz · 2025-04-03T07:17:44Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs

-    public void ReceiverParameter_RefReadonly()
+    public void ReceiverParameter_In_03()
+    {
+        var src = $$"""


Suggested change

var src = $$"""

var src = """

``` #Resolved

jjonescz · 2025-04-03T07:21:52Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs

    public void InstanceMethodInvocation_Simple_ExpressionTree()
    {
-        // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/76130 : decide whether to allow expression tree scenarios. Verify shape of the tree if we decide to allow
        var source = """


It looks like we are not verifying the shape of the tree as the prototype comment suggested. #Resolved

jjonescz · 2025-04-03T07:49:23Z

docs/compilers/CSharp/Compiler Breaking Changes - DotNet 10.md


-PROTOTYPE record which version this break is introduced in
-
+***Introduced in Visual Studio 2022 version 17.4.***


Suggested change

***Introduced in Visual Studio 2022 version 17.4.***

***Introduced in Visual Studio 2022 version 17.14.***

``` #Resolved

jcouv added Area-Compilers Feature - Extension Everything The extension everything feature labels Apr 1, 2025

jcouv self-assigned this Apr 1, 2025

ghost added the untriaged Issues and PRs which have not yet been triaged by a lead label Apr 1, 2025

jcouv force-pushed the extensions-validation branch from a180d42 to b981f62 Compare April 1, 2025 13:19

dotnet-policy-service bot added the VSCode label Apr 1, 2025

jcouv force-pushed the extensions-validation branch from b981f62 to 04e23e9 Compare April 1, 2025 13:40

Extensions: misc checks on receiver parameter and extension members

9fe5bae

jcouv force-pushed the extensions-validation branch from 04e23e9 to 9fe5bae Compare April 1, 2025 15:10

jcouv marked this pull request as ready for review April 1, 2025 15:31

jcouv requested review from a team as code owners April 1, 2025 15:31

jcouv requested review from AlekseyTs and jjonescz April 1, 2025 15:31

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

Restrict PROTOTYPE check

5f4ea9d

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

jcouv added 2 commits April 2, 2025 15:56

Address feedback

1b01943

Add two misc tests

a956b6b

jcouv requested a review from AlekseyTs April 2, 2025 14:28

AlekseyTs approved these changes Apr 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

AlekseyTs reviewed Apr 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

AlekseyTs added the breaking-change https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/blob/main/documentation/project-docs/breaking-change-guidelines.md label Apr 2, 2025

jjonescz approved these changes Apr 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

jcouv added 2 commits April 3, 2025 09:45

Address feedback

40195fc

Fix typo

18f7aee

jjonescz reviewed Apr 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

jcouv added 2 commits April 3, 2025 09:54

Address feedback

54168f1

Typo

f4c08f2

jcouv enabled auto-merge (squash) April 3, 2025 08:01

jjonescz approved these changes Apr 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

jcouv merged commit f72da0b into dotnet:main Apr 3, 2025
28 checks passed

dotnet-policy-service bot added this to the Next milestone Apr 3, 2025

jcouv deleted the extensions-validation branch April 3, 2025 11:04

This was referenced Apr 19, 2025

[Automated] PRs inserted in VS build main-10518.29 #78209

Closed

[Automated] PRs inserted in VS build feature.debugger.main-10521.160 #78252

Closed

dotnet-bot mentioned this pull request May 31, 2025

[Automated] PRs inserted in VS build feature.telemetry.d18OpenTelemetry-10630.96 #78782

Closed

RikkiGibson modified the milestones: Next, 18.0 P1 Aug 19, 2025


		hasAnyRefOmittedArgument = false;

		bool isNewExtensionMember = member.GetIsNewExtensionMember();


		## `extension` treated as a contextual keyword

		PROTOTYPE record which version this break is introduced in


		PROTOTYPE record which version this break is introduced in

		*Introduced in Visual Studio 2022 version 17.4.*

	*Introduced in Visual Studio 2022 version 17.4.*
	*Introduced in Visual Studio 2022 version 17.14.*
	``` #Resolved

	else if (ContainingType is { IsExtension: true, ExtensionParameter: { Name: "" } } && !IsStatic)
	else if (ContainingType is { IsExtension: true, ExtensionParameter.Name: "" } && !IsStatic)
	``` #Resolved

Extensions: misc checks on receiver parameter and extension members #77937

Extensions: misc checks on receiver parameter and extension members #77937

Uh oh!

Conversation

jcouv commented Apr 1, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs commented Apr 1, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 • 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!

jcouv commented Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Apr 2, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

jjonescz Apr 3, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

jjonescz Apr 3, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading