Extension indexers: allow and resolve extension indexers #81607

jcouv · 2025-12-09T21:05:10Z

The main changes in this PR:

addition of TryBindExtensionIndexer
add new feature IDS_FeatureExtensionIndexers and check LangVer (declarations and usages, see CheckExtensionMembers and ReportDiagnosticsIfDisallowedExtensionIndexer)
round-tripping of indexers in metadata: emit DefaultMemberAttribute on grouping type, which contains the extension indexer(s)

Identified some follow-ups around nullability, CREF binding, GetMemberGroup, "countable" properties, interpolation handlers, improving diagnostic quality, an existing crash with a method named this[] in metadata.

The usages of extension indexers: element access, null-conditional indexing and assignment, list and spread pattern, and object initializer.

Corresponding spec is ~~incoming~~ here. Some notable choices (will confirm with LDM):

extension indexers come before implicit indexers
no extension indexers on base

Relates to test plan #81505

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T17:09:37Z

It looks like the speclet says nothing about consumption scenarios #Closed

jcouv · 2025-12-10T17:25:47Z

It looks like the speclet says nothing about consumption scenarios

Yes, the speclet was not yet updated.

Corresponding spec is incoming. Some notable choices (will confirm with LDM):

extension indexers come before implicit indexers

no extension indexers on base

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T17:44:05Z

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

+                    if (member is PropertySymbol)
+                    {
+                        diagnostics.Add(new CSDiagnostic(
+                            new CSDiagnosticInfo(ErrorCode.ERR_ExtensionDisallowsIndexerMember, new CSharpRequiredLanguageVersion(MessageID.IDS_FeatureExtensionIndexers.RequiredVersion())),


new CSDiagnosticInfo(ErrorCode.ERR_ExtensionDisallowsIndexerMember, new CSharpRequiredLanguageVersion(MessageID.IDS_FeatureExtensionIndexers.RequiredVersion())),

I think we can use regular language version error here #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T17:45:52Z

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

+                if (!IsAllowedExtensionMember(member, languageVersion))
                {
-                    diagnostics.Add(ErrorCode.ERR_ExtensionDisallowsMember, member.GetFirstLocation());
+                    if (member is PropertySymbol)


member is PropertySymbol

It looks like we are assuming that this is an indexer. Consider asserting the fact, or including this as a condition. #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T17:47:16Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/CSharpResources.resx

+  <data name="IDS_FeatureExtensionIndexers" xml:space="preserve">
+    <value>extension indexers</value>
+  </data>
+  <data name="ERR_ExtensionDisallowsIndexerMember" xml:space="preserve">


ERR_ExtensionDisallowsIndexerMember

It doesn't look like it is necessary to have this error, a regular language version error for the feature would work as good. #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T18:01:56Z

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


+        internal static void ReportDiagnosticsIfDisallowedExtensionIndexer(BindingDiagnosticBag diagnostics, PropertySymbol property, SyntaxNode syntax)
+        {
+            if (property.IsExtensionBlockMember())


property

How do we know that this is an indexer? #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T18:06:01Z

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

                var setMethod = replace(SetMethod);
                Symbol symbol = ReferenceEquals(Symbol, Method) && method is not null ? method : Symbol;

-                Debug.Assert(SetMethod?.IsExtensionBlockMember() != true);


Debug.Assert(SetMethod?.IsExtensionBlockMember() != true);

It is not obvious why this condition was correct for properties and isn't for indexers. Is it still worth asserting for properties?

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T19:28:06Z

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

+                    lookupResult, WellKnownMemberNames.Indexer, arity: 0, LookupOptions.AllMethodsOnArityZero,
+                    originalBinder: binder, useSiteInfo: ref useSiteInfo);
+
+                if (!lookupResult.IsMultiViable || lookupResult.Symbols.All(s => s.Kind != SymbolKind.Property))


s.Kind != SymbolKind.Property

Should we also check that it is an indexer? #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T19:32:31Z

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

+
+                MemberResolutionResult<PropertySymbol> resolutionResult = result.ValidResult;
+                Debug.Assert(resolutionResult.Result.ConversionForArg(0).Exists);
+                resolutionResult = resolutionResult.WithResult(resolutionResult.Result.WithoutReceiverArgument());


resolutionResult = resolutionResult.WithResult(resolutionResult.Result.WithoutReceiverArgument());

Since we are dropping receiver argument, should argumentNames and argumentRefKinds be adjusted as well? #Closed

I don't think so. We're getting argumentNames and argumentRefKinds from analyzedArguments (not from actualArguments or some other source).

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T19:33:32Z

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

+                ArrayBuilder<PropertySymbol>? properties = null;
+                foreach (var member in lookupResult.Symbols)
+                {
+                    if (member is PropertySymbol property)


member is PropertySymbol property

Should we check that it is an indexer? #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T19:43:15Z

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


-            overloadResolutionResult.Free();
-            return propertyAccess;
+            bool isNewExtensionMember = property.IsExtensionBlockMember();


isNewExtensionMember

Consider avoiding using "neExtension" term. All features are new only until they are shipped. Consider using terms that "survive" long term #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T19:44:31Z

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


-                // Make sure that the result of overload resolution is valid.
-                var gotError = MemberGroupFinalValidationAccessibilityChecks(receiver, property, syntax, diagnostics, invokedAsExtensionMethod: false);
+        private BoundExpression BindIndexerOrIndexedPropertyAccessContinued(SyntaxNode syntax, BoundExpression receiver, AnalyzedArguments analyzedArguments, BindingDiagnosticBag diagnostics, ImmutableArray<string> argumentNames, ImmutableArray<RefKind> argumentRefKinds, MemberResolutionResult<PropertySymbol> resolutionResult)


BoundExpression

BoundIndexerAccess? #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T19:45:11Z

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

+                Binder binder,
+                ExtensionScope scope,
+                BindingDiagnosticBag diagnostics,
+                out BoundExpression? extensionIndexerAccess)


BoundExpression

BoundIndexerAccess? #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-10T19:45:44Z

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

            }
        }

+        private bool TryBindExtensionIndexer(SyntaxNode syntax, BoundExpression left, AnalyzedArguments analyzedArguments, BindingDiagnosticBag diagnostics, [NotNullWhen(true)] out BoundExpression? extensionIndexerAccess)


BoundExpression

BoundIndexerAccess? #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T00:02:15Z

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

            singleLookupResults.Free();
        }

+        private void LookupAllNewExtensionMembersInSingleBinder(LookupResult result, string? name,


NewExtensionMembers

Similar comment for "NewExtensionMembers" term. It looks like this is applicable to other new APIs. #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T00:10:03Z

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

+                int arity, LookupOptions options, Binder originalBinder, ref CompoundUseSiteInfo<AssemblySymbol> useSiteInfo)
+        {
+            var singleLookupResults = ArrayBuilder<SingleLookupResult>.GetInstance();
+            EnumerateAllNewExtensionMembersInSingleBinder(singleLookupResults, name, arity, options, originalBinder, ref useSiteInfo);


EnumerateAllNewExtensionMembersInSingleBinder

Consider asserting that result is null. Or conditionally Free it. #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T00:14:44Z

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

+                CompoundUseSiteInfo<AssemblySymbol> useSiteInfo = binder.GetNewCompoundUseSiteInfo(diagnostics);
+
+                scope.Binder.LookupAllNewExtensionMembersInSingleBinder(
+                    lookupResult, WellKnownMemberNames.Indexer, arity: 0, LookupOptions.AllMethodsOnArityZero,


LookupOptions.AllMethodsOnArityZero

Do we actually expect to get back any methods? #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T00:19:49Z

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

                            return;
                        case BoundIndexerAccess { Indexer.SetMethod: { } indexerSet } indexer when indexerSet.IsExtensionBlockMember():
                            methodInvocationInfo = MethodInvocationInfo.FromIndexerAccess(indexer);
-                            Debug.Assert(ReferenceEquals(methodInvocationInfo.MethodInfo.Method, indexerSet));


Debug.Assert(ReferenceEquals(methodInvocationInfo.MethodInfo.Method, indexerSet));

What method do we get now? #Pending

We get an identical but not reference-equal method. SubstitutedPropertySymbol.GetMethod and .SetMethod return new symbols every time they are called.

Let's assert the equality fact then?

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T00:26:46Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Lowering/LocalRewriter/LocalRewriter_IndexerAccess.cs

                    // Tracked by https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/71056
                    AddPlaceholderReplacement(argumentPlaceholder, integerArgument);
-                    // https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/78829 - Do we need to do something special for recievers of extension indexers here?
+                    Debug.Assert(!indexerAccess.Indexer.IsExtensionBlockMember());


Debug.Assert(!indexerAccess.Indexer.IsExtensionBlockMember());

This looks suspicious. Are we saying that extension indexers will not participate in implicit indexing pattern? #Pending

I think the comment is useful until the design decision is pending. Consider transforming it into a PROTOTYPE comment, if you simply want to remove a link to the issue.

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T01:39:50Z

    comp = CreateCompilation(src, targetFramework: TargetFramework.Net70);

Is there still a value in creating this compilation? #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs:27521 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T01:43:18Z

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

+            Diagnostic(ErrorCode.ERR_ExtensionDisallowsIndexerMember, "this").WithArguments("preview").WithLocation(12, 20));
+
+        comp = CreateCompilation(src, targetFramework: TargetFramework.Net70);
+        CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: ExpectedOutput("^1"), verify: Verification.Skipped).VerifyDiagnostics();


CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: ExpectedOutput("^1"), verify: Verification.Skipped).VerifyDiagnostics();

Consider also testing scenarios when receiver must be boxed, see #81173 #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T02:05:04Z

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

+        comp.VerifyDiagnostics();
+
+        comp = CreateCompilation(src, options: TestOptions.DebugExe);
+        CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: @"12: (o, s) => get_Item(o, s)").VerifyDiagnostics();


CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: @"12: (o, s) => get_Item(o, s)").VerifyDiagnostics();

This doesn't look right. We decided that we don't support extension properties (see the following test), the same reason is applicable to extension indexers, I think. #Pending

Good catch. Thanks

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T02:16:51Z

    s = e.get_Item(x, 0);

Is this a typo? I assume we expect to get similar ref safety errors on this and the previous line #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs:45874 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T02:19:14Z

    s[1.0] = x;

I assume we should get the same ref safety error on this line as for the next line, but it looks like we don't get it. #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs:45876 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T02:26:23Z

        context.RegisterSyntaxNodeAction(handle, SyntaxKind.PropertyDeclaration);

Consider registering for IndexerDeclarationSyntax as well. Otherwise, we are not asserting events for indexers. #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests.cs:51905 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T02:32:43Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests2.cs

+        if (refKind == "ref readonly")
+        {
+            comp2.VerifyDiagnostics(
+                // (15,9): warning CS9193: Argument 0 should be a variable because it is passed to a 'ref readonly' parameter


// (15,9): warning CS9193: Argument 0 should be a variable because it is passed to a 'ref readonly' parameter

Do we report this warning for an extension property? #Closed

It looks like we do

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T02:44:40Z

src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/Emit3/Semantics/ExtensionTests2.cs

+        }
+        else
+        {
+            comp2.VerifyDiagnostics();


comp2.VerifyDiagnostics();

I think we should assert IL for the two cases that do not report an error. #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T04:59:56Z

public void Declaration_06()

Dupe of the previous test? #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:184 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T05:03:43Z

public void Declaration_11()

Dupe of Declaration_01? #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:295 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T05:15:00Z

    // Color Color receiver

I do not think there is such a thing with an index expression. Not to mention the fact that indexers cannot be static. #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:738 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T05:17:23Z

class C { }

Consider also testing with a struct type (receiver must be boxed). #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:890 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T05:21:24Z

    // inaccessible

Consider actually adding a test with accessibility #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:1063 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T05:46:12Z

        // (1,24): error CS0131: The left-hand side of an assignment must be a variable, property or indexer

Does this look like a bug? #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:2441 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T05:50:25Z

public void ConditionalAssignment_01()

Consider covering nullable value type scenario #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:2533 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T05:50:37Z

public void ConditionalAccess_01()

Consider covering nullable value type scenario #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:2576 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T05:55:21Z

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

+        {
+            if (property.IsExtensionBlockMember())
+            {
+                MessageID.IDS_FeatureExtensionIndexers.CheckFeatureAvailability(diagnostics, syntax);


MessageID.IDS_FeatureExtensionIndexers.CheckFeatureAvailability(diagnostics, syntax);

Consider skipping the check if the indexer is declared in the same module. We already complained on the declaration #Pending

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T05:59:14Z

public void Metadata_01()

Consider also testing with IndexerName attribute #Closed

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:2736 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T06:05:25Z

public void Metadata_02(bool useCompilationReference)

Consider also testing with IndexerName attribute #Closed

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:2834 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T06:22:51Z

_ = d[0];

We should test scenario with 'dynamic' argument and non-dynamic receiver #Closed

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:4903 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T06:26:24Z

    // Irregular/legacy behavior for indexer arguments

I do not see any irregularity for indexer arguments. Could you elaborate? #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:4926 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T06:28:38Z

public void RefAnalysis_Indexing_01()

Were RefAnalysis tests cloned from some existing regular indexers tests? #Closed

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:5019 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-11T06:32:50Z

Done with review pass (commit 1)

jcouv · 2025-12-11T18:00:55Z

It looks like the speclet says nothing about consumption scenarios

Here's the corresponding PR to update the spec: dotnet/csharplang#9869 #Resolved

jcouv · 2025-12-12T00:15:48Z

_ = d[0];

I think that's Dynamic_01 above

In reply to: 3640424908

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:4903 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

jcouv · 2025-12-12T00:19:04Z

    // Irregular/legacy behavior for indexer arguments

For indexers, we skip the safety check for usage of pointer type. Extension indexers carry over the same behavior as non-extension indexers.
I'll improve the comment

            void reportUnsafeIfNeeded(MemberResolutionResult<TMember> methodResult, BindingDiagnosticBag diagnostics, BoundExpression argument, TypeWithAnnotations parameterTypeWithAnnotations)
            {
                // NOTE: for some reason, dev10 doesn't report this for indexer accesses.
                if (!methodResult.Member.IsIndexer() && !argument.HasAnyErrors && parameterTypeWithAnnotations.Type.ContainsPointerOrFunctionPointer())
                {
                    // CONSIDER: dev10 uses the call syntax, but this seems clearer.
                    ReportUnsafeIfNotAllowed(argument.Syntax, diagnostics);
                    //CONSIDER: Return a bad expression so that HasErrors is true?
                }
            }

In reply to: 3640433536

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:4926 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

jcouv · 2025-12-12T00:20:04Z

public void RefAnalysis_Indexing_01()

I used existing and modified ref analysis tests for extension methods

In reply to: 3640438499

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:5019 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-12T00:21:33Z

    CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: ExpectedOutput("ran"), verify: Verification.Skipped).VerifyDiagnostics();

This looks like something that shouldn't work. Dynamic argument assumes dynamic evaluation and runtime binder has no support for extensions #Pending

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:4874 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

AlekseyTs · 2025-12-12T00:22:16Z

_ = d[0];

I think that's Dynamic_01 above

Indeed. Thanks, Added a comment for it

In reply to: 3644345290

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:4903 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

jcouv · 2025-12-12T17:30:23Z

    CompileAndVerify(comp, expectedOutput: ExpectedOutput("ran"), verify: Verification.Skipped).VerifyDiagnostics();

Thanks. Will PROTOTYPE for follow-up

In reply to: 3644360564

Refers to: src/Compilers/CSharp/Test/CSharp15/ExtensionIndexersTests.cs:4874 in f504f6e. [](commit_id = f504f6e, deletion_comment = False)

jcouv self-assigned this Dec 9, 2025

jcouv added Area-Compilers Feature - Extension Indexers labels Dec 9, 2025

jcouv changed the title ~~Extension indexers: resolve extension indexers~~ Extension indexers: allow and resolve extension indexers Dec 9, 2025

jcouv force-pushed the extension-indexers branch 3 times, most recently from 37bad6f to 344fa46 Compare December 9, 2025 22:59

Extension indexers: allow and resolve extension indexers

f504f6e

jcouv force-pushed the extension-indexers branch from 344fa46 to f504f6e Compare December 9, 2025 23:28

jcouv marked this pull request as ready for review December 10, 2025 02:19

jcouv requested a review from a team as a code owner December 10, 2025 02:19

AlekseyTs reviewed Dec 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

AlekseyTs reviewed Dec 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Extension indexers: allow and resolve extension indexers #81607

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Extension indexers: allow and resolve extension indexers #81607

Conversation

jcouv commented Dec 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs commented Dec 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jcouv commented Dec 10, 2025

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 10, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 10, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 10, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 10, 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!

jcouv Dec 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 10, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 10, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 10, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 10, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 11, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 11, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 11, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 11, 2025 • edited by jcouv 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 Dec 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jcouv commented Dec 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 10, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

AlekseyTs Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading

AlekseyTs commented Dec 11, 2025 •

edited by jcouv

Loading