Put record parameters in scope of xml docs #49134

jcouv · 2020-11-02T18:53:53Z

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-03T23:10:04Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+            var i1 = model.GetDeclaredSymbol(parameter);
+
+            comp.VerifyDiagnostics(
+                // (4,21): warning CS1591: Missing XML comment for publicly visible type or member 'C.I1'


warning CS1591: Missing XML comment for publicly visible type or member 'C.I1' [](start = 27, length = 78)

Is this warning for generated property? I think we need to suppress it one way or another. #Closed

Yes, the warning is for the generated property. I'm okay to suppress it #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-03T23:18:39Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+    <summary>Property summary</summary>
+</member>
+", property.GetDocumentationCommentXml());
+        }
    }


} [](start = 4, length = 1)

I think we need to have tests with multiple partial declarations:

when the primary constructor declaration is in a different part

when the type part has parameters in syntax, but they are not parameters of the primary constructor for the record,

other error scenarios

etc. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-03T23:25:19Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/BinderFactory.BinderFactoryVisitor.cs

                {
                    Binder outerBinder = VisitCore(memberSyntax.Parent);
                    MethodSymbol method = GetMethodSymbol(baseMethodDeclSyntax, outerBinder);
                    return new WithParametersBinder(method.Parameters, nextBinder);
                }

+                if (memberSyntax is RecordDeclarationSyntax { ParameterList: { ParameterCount: > 0 } } recordDeclSyntax)
+                {
+                    Binder outerBinder = VisitCore(memberSyntax.Parent);


memberSyntax.Parent [](start = 51, length = 19)

Is there a reason to go up to the parent here? Could we get a binder for the type instead? #Closed

Indeed, we get the same binder without .Parent. Will remove. Thanks #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-03T23:26:55Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/BinderFactory.BinderFactoryVisitor.cs

+                {
+                    Binder outerBinder = VisitCore(memberSyntax.Parent);
+                    SourceNamedTypeSymbol recordType = ((NamespaceOrTypeSymbol)outerBinder.ContainingMemberOrLambda).GetSourceTypeMember(recordDeclSyntax);
+                    var primaryConstructor = recordType.GetMembersUnordered().OfType<SynthesizedRecordConstructor>().SingleOrDefault();


primaryConstructor [](start = 24, length = 18)

I think this method might not correspond to the parameters in this partial declaration. #Closed

Added tests for partials.
We're basically taking the xml doc from the declaration that has the parameter list. That seems sensible. But we could also try to also find the xml doc on declaration without parameter list. What do you think?

In reply to: 517014473 [](ancestors = 517014473)

We're basically taking the xml doc from the declaration that has the parameter list. That seems sensible. But we could also try to also find the xml doc on declaration without parameter list. What do you think?

I think that we should match doc-comment to the primary constructor only if both are on the same partial declaration

In reply to: 518320962 [](ancestors = 518320962,517014473)

Note that only one partial declaration declares a primary constructor, parameter lists on other declarations are ignored and not analyzed, can have all kind of differences by comparison to each other.

In reply to: 518379208 [](ancestors = 518379208,518320962,517014473)

Apparently my comment wasn't clear. Let me rephrase it. I think that here we should find primary constructor symbol only if it corresponds to memberSyntax. We shouldn't be using a symbol that is declared by a different partial declaration.

In reply to: 518380246 [](ancestors = 518380246,518379208,518320962,517014473)

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-03T23:28:59Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/BinderFactory.BinderFactoryVisitor.cs

+                    SourceNamedTypeSymbol recordType = ((NamespaceOrTypeSymbol)outerBinder.ContainingMemberOrLambda).GetSourceTypeMember(recordDeclSyntax);
+                    var primaryConstructor = recordType.GetMembersUnordered().OfType<SynthesizedRecordConstructor>().SingleOrDefault();
+                    Debug.Assert(primaryConstructor is not null);
+                    return new WithParametersBinder(primaryConstructor.Parameters, nextBinder);


nextBinder [](start = 83, length = 10)

What is this binder? Is it the same kind as the one used when we return from the previous if? #Closed

It's the binder used to bring parameters in scope into xmldocs. Yes, it's the same that is used in the previous if (which handles the xmldoc binding on methods).

/// Binder used to place the parameters of a method, property, indexer, or delegate /// in scope when binding <param> tags inside of XML documentation comments. ``` #Resolved

It's the binder used to bring parameters in scope into xmldocs. Yes, it's the same that is used in the previous if (which handles the xmldoc binding on methods).

This doesn't really answer my question. Could you stop on both code paths under debugger and examine what is nextBinder on each of them? What is the type of the binder, containing symbols, etc.

In reply to: 518262702 [](ancestors = 518262702)

Sorry, I'd misunderstood the question (didn't notice you were pointing at "nextBinder").
nextBinder is a BinderWithContainingMemberOrLambda for the global namespace.

BuckStopsHereBinder └─BinderWithContainingMemberOrLambda └─containing symbol: <global namespace>

But in the previous if, we'd have nextBinder being the containing type C:

BuckStopsHereBinder └─BinderWithContainingMemberOrLambda └─containing symbol: C

You raise a good question (implicitly): should we chain a binder for the type C before we chain a binder for parameter list? #Resolved

You raise a good question (implicitly): should we chain a binder for the type C before we chain a binder for parameter list?

If the binder that we return is used to resolve something other than parameter references, then, I think, we should add some targeted tests to verify/observe what the nextBinder brings/doesn't bring in scope and whether the behavior matches our expectations.

In reply to: 518301145 [](ancestors = 518301145)

I'd like to follow up offline on:

If the binder that we return is used to resolve something other than parameter references, then, I think, we should add some targeted tests to verify/observe what the nextBinder brings/doesn't bring in scope and whether the behavior matches our expectations.

In reply to: 517015109 [](ancestors = 517015109)

Did some further review of impact.
The change to BinderFactory.GetParameterNameAttributeValueBinder only affects the name property as it is only used in BinderFactory.VisitXmlNameAttribute. Only <param> and <paramref> tags use it.
The resulting binder is only used in DocumentationCommentCompiler.BindName. I added some tests for some of the cases in that method.

In reply to: 541433186 [](ancestors = 541433186,517015109)

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-03T23:31:32Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+            Assert.Equal(
+@"<member name=""T:C"">
+    <summary>Summary</summary>
+    <param name=""I1"">Description for I1</param>


Description for I1 [](start = 4, length = 45)

Is it Ok to have a param tag on the type? #Closed

Yes, this is what we had discussed. See notes: #44571 (comment) #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-03T23:33:05Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+    <summary>Summary</summary>
+    <param name=""I1"">Description for I1</param>
+</member>
+", constructor.GetDocumentationCommentXml());


GetDocumentationCommentXml [](start = 15, length = 26)

I didn't see any special code change to add this doc-comment to the constructor. How does this work? #Closed

The declaring syntax for the constructor is the record declaration, so we find the proper trivia containing xmldocs. #ByDesign

The declaring syntax for the constructor is the record declaration, so we find the proper trivia containing xmldocs.

So, we attach types doc-comment to the constructor? I do not think we made an explicit decision to do that. It works this way by accident.

In reply to: 518263269 [](ancestors = 518263269)

I think we want the xmldoc on the record to apply to the contructor too, that's consistent with wanting the <param> to apply to the primary constructor parameters.
Can you clarify what is your expectation or proposal? #ByDesign

I think we want the xmldoc on the record to apply to the contructor too, that's consistent with wanting the to apply to the primary constructor parameters.
Can you clarify what is your expectation or proposal?

I believe, we decided to transfer content of <param> to the constructor, not the entire doc comment. I am proposing to either explicitly make this decision (outside of this PR), or to follow previous decision by the letter. I.e. transfer the tags rather than the entire doc-comment.

In reply to: 518290263 [](ancestors = 518290263)

Confirmed expectations by email with LDM. Notes from 11/9/2020:

The entire xml doc from the record applies to the primary constructor (not just )

Missing xml doc warning is suppressed on synthesized properties for now

In reply to: 518293736 [](ancestors = 518293736,518290263)

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-03T23:35:48Z

Done with review pass (iteration 1) #Closed

jcouv · 2020-11-05T19:43:06Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+", e.GetDocumentationCommentXml());
+
+            var eConstructor = e.GetMembers(".ctor").First();
+            Assert.Equal(1, eConstructor.DeclaringSyntaxReferences.Count());


📝 If we kept track of two declaring syntax references for this error scenario, we could collect both xml docs. I'm not sure that's worthwhile. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-05T21:40:31Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+
+/// <summary>Summary</summary>
+/// <param name=""I1"">Description for I1</param>
+public partial record E;


Do we have a test with partial declarations in different order? #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-05T21:42:09Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+            var src = @"
+public partial record C;
+
+/// <summary>Summary</summary>


Summary [](start = 13, length = 7)

Please make sure each doc comment has distinct content so that we could be certain where things are coming from. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-05T21:46:09Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+
+        [Fact]
+        [WorkItem(44571, "https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/44571")]
+        public void XmlDoc_Partial_DuplicateParameterList()


XmlDoc_Partial_DuplicateParameterList [](start = 20, length = 37)

Are we testing with different parameter lists, perhaps with different parameter names, etc.? #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-05T21:48:24Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+public partial record C(int I1);
+
+/// <summary>Summary</summary>
+/// <param name=""I1"">Description for I1</param>


I would expect a diagnostics on this tag. This partial declaration doesn't declare any primary constructor and cannot refer to a parameters. #Closed

We do have a diagnostic for this situation ( on the partial that doesn't declare primary constructor):

// (5,18): warning CS1572: XML comment has a param tag for 'I1', but there is no parameter by that name // /// <param name="I1">Description for I1</param> Diagnostic(ErrorCode.WRN_UnmatchedParamTag, "I1").WithArguments("I1").WithLocation(5, 18)

In reply to: 518389638 [](ancestors = 518389638)

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-05T21:50:34Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+
+/// <summary>Summary</summary>
+/// <param name=""I1"">Description for I1</param>
+public partial record C(int I1);


(int I1) [](start = 23, length = 8)

We should also have a test with a different parameter list. There is no guarantee that all partials will have the same parameter list. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-05T21:53:19Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+                // (12,24): error CS8863: Only a single record partial declaration may have a parameter list
+                // public partial record D(int I1);
+                Diagnostic(ErrorCode.ERR_MultipleRecordParameterLists, "(int I1)").WithLocation(12, 24),
+                // (19,12): warning CS1571: XML comment has a duplicate param tag for 'I1'


// (19,12): warning CS1571: XML comment has a duplicate param tag for 'I1' [](start = 16, length = 74)

This looks unexpected, I do not see duplicate tags in the doc-comment. #Closed

commented at new location in source

In reply to: 518392130 [](ancestors = 518392130)

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-05T21:54:51Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+            var src = @"
+public partial record C(int I1);
+
+/// <summary>Summary</summary>


Summary [](start = 13, length = 7)

I cannot tell doc comments apart, therefore cannot verify expected behavior. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2020-11-05T21:57:49Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+
+        [Fact]
+        [WorkItem(44571, "https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/44571")]
+        public void XmlDoc_Partial()


XmlDoc_Partial [](start = 20, length = 14)

Consider putting each distinct scenario in a separate unit-test #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2020-12-11T23:23:40Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+</member>
+", e.GetDocumentationCommentXml());
+
+            var eConstructor = e.GetMembers(".ctor").First();


.First() [](start = 52, length = 8)

This feels fragile, there are several constructors there and we are relying on their order in the list, which can change in the future because the order is not specified by the language. Reviewers also cannot tell which constructor we look at. #Closed

AlekseyTs · 2020-12-11T23:59:58Z

Done with review pass (commit 9) #Closed

eluchsinger · 2020-12-21T11:35:28Z

When can we count on a release containing this fix? #Resolved

jcouv · 2020-12-21T20:39:56Z

@eluchsinger Aiming for 16.9p4 at this point #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2020-12-23T15:17:06Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/BinderFactory.BinderFactoryVisitor.cs

+                        return new WithParametersBinder(primaryConstructor.Parameters, nextBinder);
+                    }
+
+                    return nextBinder;


return nextBinder; [](start = 20, length = 18)

Consider falling through. We handled the case we were looking for and letting the rest of the function to see if something else is applicable. #Resolved

AlekseyTs · 2020-12-23T15:23:29Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+    <param name=""I1"">Description for I1</param>
+</member>
+", cMember.GetDocumentationCommentXml());
+            var constructor = cMember.GetMembers(".ctor").OfType<MethodSymbol>().Where(m => m.Parameters.AsSingleton()!.Name == "I1").Single();


MethodSymbol [](start = 65, length = 12)

Would it be simpler and more robust to use SynthesizedRecordConstructor type check instead? There would be no need to check parameter names, etc. #Resolved

AlekseyTs

LGTM (commit 12)

jcouv · 2020-12-28T21:37:15Z

@dotnet/roslyn-compiler for a second review. Thanks #Resolved

333fred · 2020-12-29T22:46:17Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/BinderFactory.BinderFactoryVisitor.cs

+                {
+                    Binder outerBinder = VisitCore(memberSyntax);
+                    SourceNamedTypeSymbol recordType = ((NamespaceOrTypeSymbol)outerBinder.ContainingMemberOrLambda).GetSourceTypeMember(recordDeclSyntax);
+                    var primaryConstructor = recordType.GetMembersUnordered().OfType<SynthesizedRecordConstructor>().SingleOrDefault();


SingleOrDefault [](start = 117, length = 15)

Why will this be necessarily only one constructor? Doesn't the copy constructor count as a SynthesizedRecordConstructor? Consider leaving a comment. #ByDesign

Records have exactly one SynthesizedRecordConstructor (it's the primary ctor). The copy constructor is either a source symbol or SynthesizedRecordCopyCtor.

In reply to: 549877846 [](ancestors = 549877846)

333fred · 2020-12-29T22:48:49Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Compiler/DocumentationCommentCompiler.cs

+            return symbol.IsImplicitlyDeclared ||
+                symbol.IsAccessor() ||
+                symbol is SynthesizedSimpleProgramEntryPointSymbol ||
+                symbol is SimpleProgramNamedTypeSymbol ||


Could be symbol is SynthesizedSimpleProgramEntryPointSymbol or SimpleProgramNamedTypeSymbol or SynthesizedRecordPropertySymbol. #ByDesign

It could (was suggested by Olivier earlier) but I think it reads better as-is.

In reply to: 549878424 [](ancestors = 549878424)

I mean, I don't agree, but it's your call I guess.

In reply to: 549984705 [](ancestors = 549984705,549878424)

333fred · 2020-12-29T22:50:59Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+
+        [Fact]
+        [WorkItem(44571, "https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/44571")]
+        public void XmlDoc_Cref()


I get why this test case works the way it does, but I bet someone will be confused by it anyway. #ByDesign

It threw me off at first too...

In reply to: 549878824 [](ancestors = 549878824)

333fred · 2020-12-29T22:51:44Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+            comp.VerifyDiagnostics(
+                // (3,18): warning CS1572: XML comment has a param tag for 'Error', but there is no parameter by that name
+                // /// <param name="Error"></param>
+                Diagnostic(ErrorCode.WRN_UnmatchedParamTag, "Error").WithArguments("Error").WithLocation(3, 18),


Can we dedup these? #WontFix

Technically the warning on the property could be fixed separately, so the warnings are separate.
But mostly I don't think it's worth the effort to dedupe :-/

In reply to: 549878969 [](ancestors = 549878969)

333fred · 2020-12-29T22:55:41Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Semantic/Semantics/RecordTests.cs

+
+    /// <summary>Summary</summary>
+    /// <param name=""I1"">Description for I1</param>
+    /// <param name=""O1"">Error</param>


Consider putting Error O1 and similar for these cases, so they're differentiated in the test output. #Closed

333fred · 2020-12-29T22:56:43Z

Done review pass (commit 13). #Resolved

333fred

LGTM (commit 14)

jcouv added Area-Compilers Feature - Records Records labels Nov 2, 2020

jcouv self-assigned this Nov 2, 2020

jcouv force-pushed the xml-docs branch from a252ac7 to 01c7513 Compare November 2, 2020 19:10

Put record parameters in scope of xml docs

5022bc2

jcouv force-pushed the xml-docs branch from 01c7513 to 5022bc2 Compare November 2, 2020 20:32

jcouv marked this pull request as ready for review November 2, 2020 21:39

jcouv requested a review from a team as a code owner November 2, 2020 21:39

AlekseyTs reviewed Nov 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

jcouv added 5 commits November 5, 2020 10:19

Suppress missing xml on synthesized record properties

de5e638

Add tests for various partials

ffe4fda

Add test for empty parameter list

1c7f178

Remove .Parent

14e6b96

Add test with nested record

2af5a82

jcouv commented Nov 5, 2020

View reviewed changes

AlekseyTs reviewed Nov 5, 2020

View reviewed changes

AlekseyTs reviewed Dec 11, 2020

View reviewed changes

nits

76d7c1a

jcouv added 2 commits December 21, 2020 15:29

more tests

6ecb064

test cref

ecc1f93

jcouv requested a review from AlekseyTs December 21, 2020 23:58

AlekseyTs reviewed Dec 23, 2020

View reviewed changes

AlekseyTs approved these changes Dec 23, 2020

View reviewed changes

Nikey646 mentioned this pull request Dec 25, 2020

Version 2 Discussion Nikey646/VndbSharp#71

Closed

5 tasks

tweaks

61ab83b

333fred reviewed Dec 29, 2020

View reviewed changes

Address feedback

1872663

jcouv requested a review from 333fred December 30, 2020 18:58

333fred approved these changes Jan 4, 2021

View reviewed changes

jcouv merged commit 9f87b44 into dotnet:master Jan 5, 2021

ghost added this to the Next milestone Jan 5, 2021

jcouv deleted the xml-docs branch January 5, 2021 20:05

Cosifne modified the milestones: Next, 16.9 Jan 27, 2021

JoeRobich modified the milestones: 16.9, 16.9.P4 Jan 27, 2021

Put record parameters in scope of xml docs #49134

Put record parameters in scope of xml docs #49134

Uh oh!

Conversation

jcouv commented Nov 2, 2020

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 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!

jcouv Nov 5, 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!

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 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!

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 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!

jcouv Nov 5, 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!

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 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!

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 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!

jcouv Nov 5, 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!

jcouv Nov 5, 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!

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 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!

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 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!

jcouv Nov 4, 2020 • edited by 333fred 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 Nov 3, 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!

jcouv Nov 5, 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!

jcouv Nov 5, 2020 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Nov 4, 2020 •

edited by 333fred

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 3, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Nov 3, 2020 •

edited

Loading

jcouv Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Nov 5, 2020 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2020 •

edited

Loading