Don't include features from skipped ports in CI runs. #1822

BillyONeal · 2025-10-21T21:35:20Z

OK, so here's the situation:

ci.baseline.txt has:

# Missing system libraries
qtwayland:arm64-osx=skip
qtwayland:x64-osx=skip

In microsoft/vcpkg#47735 , qtwayland depends on qtbase[wayland], which implicates the same missing system libraries. This causes qtbase to contain the feature wayland when we try to build it, even though qtwayland is skipped. That makes qtbase fail to build and breaks everything that depends on qt.

The fix is just to not include explicitly skipped ports when we are forming the list of specs we want when building the initial action plan.

======================

As a result of reviewing competing change from @Neumann-A #1821 (comment) which also added more correct skip outputs, this also contains a full overhaul of our console output for the ci command to include more status in the "table" at the beginning, and ensure every port is included in the table at the beginning and in the summary counts at the end.

I think @Neumann-A and @dg0yt should be listed as effective coauthors on this when merging. @Neumann-A suggested the original behavior change and wrote #1821 with an initial shot at it. @dg0yt contributed several helpful test cases.

…icrosoft/vcpkg#47735 OK, so here's the situation: `ci.baseline.txt` has: ```console # Missing system libraries qtwayland:arm64-osx=skip qtwayland:x64-osx=skip ``` In microsoft/vcpkg#47735, `qtwayland` depends on `qtbase[wayland]`, which implicates the same missing system libraries. This causes `qtbase` to contain the feature `wayland` when we try to build it, even though `qtwayland` is skipped.

BillyONeal · 2025-10-21T21:35:35Z

Alternative to #1821

BillyONeal · 2025-10-21T21:37:06Z

Before the fix, the test output is something like:

Detecting compiler hash for triplet x86-windows...
Compiler found: C:/Program Files/Microsoft Visual Studio/2022/Enterprise/VC/Tools/MSVC/14.44.35207/bin/Hostx64/x86/cl.exe
            skipped-features:x86-windows:        *: 54830d1c353d4c11b0fe77014a1b7973eba052729c77fc1597c2eb5506df875c
             skipped-depends:x86-windows:     skip: d5aa71e67e593c1c94e5090c89621c2e0d01c0c928149ba77ea38b8b0a18176c
Time to determine pass/fail: 2.8 s
Installing 1/1 skipped-features[core,fail-if-included]:[email protected]...
Building skipped-features[core,fail-if-included]:[email protected]...
CMake Error at C:/Dev/vcpkg-tool/azure-pipelines/e2e-assets/ci-skipped-features/skipped-features/portfile.cmake:3 (message):
  The feature 'fail-if-included' should not be included.
Call Stack (most recent call first):
  scripts/ports.cmake:206 (include)


error: building skipped-features:x86-windows failed with: BUILD_FAILED
See https://learn.microsoft.com/vcpkg/troubleshoot/build-failures?WT.mc_id=vcpkg_inproduct_cli for more information.
Elapsed time to handle skipped-features:x86-windows: 39.1 ms
Total install time: 39.8 ms

Triplet: x86-windows
RESULTS
  skipped-features:x86-windows: BUILD_FAILED: 39.1 ms

SUMMARY FOR x86-windows
  BUILD_FAILED: 1

After:

Compiler found: C:/Program Files/Microsoft Visual Studio/2022/Enterprise/VC/Tools/MSVC/14.44.35207/bin/Hostx64/x86/cl.exe
             skipped-depends:x86-windows: skip
            skipped-features:x86-windows:      *: bd8a73d4f54b8505b84fcb4f15268b44c4b7063986ce00a843ff904a0d8f410b
Time to determine pass/fail: 3.8 s
Installing 1/1 skipped-features:[email protected]...
Building skipped-features:[email protected]...
-- Skipping post-build validation due to VCPKG_POLICY_EMPTY_PACKAGE
Elapsed time to handle skipped-features:x86-windows: 61.4 ms
skipped-features:x86-windows package ABI: bd8a73d4f54b8505b84fcb4f15268b44c4b7063986ce00a843ff904a0d8f410b
Total install time: 63.8 ms


Triplet: x86-windows
  skipped-features:x86-windows: SUCCEEDED: 61.4 ms

SUMMARY FOR x86-windows
  SUCCEEDED: 1
  EXCLUDED: 1

Notes:

Table at the top is sorted alphabetically now
Skipped entries no longer claim to have an ABI hash (they aren't participating in the plan)
The skipped port properly is reported as "EXCLUDED" at the end.

BillyONeal · 2025-10-21T21:37:57Z

Oh hmmm this is suboptimal because the skip isn't in the report at the beginning. Hmmm....

BillyONeal · 2025-10-22T20:30:52Z

I need to consider / test the impact of known fails here.

BillyONeal · 2025-10-22T20:32:46Z

https://dev.azure.com/vcpkg/public/_build/results?buildId=121604&view=logs&j=7922e5c4-0103-5f8f-ad17-45ce9bb98e80&t=8ceef4ed-9be5-594f-e707-4e1dd58a3d21

Compiler found: C:/Program Files/Microsoft Visual Studio/2022/Enterprise/VC/Tools/MSVC/14.44.35207/bin/Hostx64/x64/cl.exe
                         acl:x64-windows:     skip
          aliyun-oss-cpp-sdk:x64-windows:     skip
                        alsa:x64-windows:     skip
                   appstream:x64-windows:  cascade

Example output where we don't print the ABI sha comes from this line:

vcpkg-tool/src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

Line 407 in 71538f2

bool supp = supported_for_triplet(var_provider, provider, spec.package_spec);

BillyONeal · 2025-10-22T20:44:20Z

@ras0219-msft @vicroms @MahmoudGSaleh @AugP and I discussed today. Rough feedback sounds like:

Every port-name needs to be printed somewhere in the output so that people can understand what happened to them.
Given that we have existing output that prints cascade or skip with no ABI SHA, we probably should print these exclusions in the same way.
Billy needs to check what happens for known fails vs. true skips (CI ABI hashes should not differ from PR ABI hashes)

=================

I also observe that I should probably test the XUnit and summary output for these cases.

…ures

…ecs.

Neumann-A · 2025-10-26T19:34:52Z

@BillyONeal Do you have an estimate when this is finished since it is blocking the qt pr?

src/vcpkg/binarycaching.cpp

ras0219-msft · 2025-10-29T16:30:51Z

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

            }
        }
+
+        // FIXME this is the root of the problem: `results` should have *all* of the results, not need to be somehow


To fix that 'excluded' is not properly accounted for in the build report, and in the xunit output, etc.

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

ras0219-msft · 2025-10-29T16:41:21Z

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

+            }
+            else
+            {
+                result.excluded.emplace_back(PackageSpec{scfl->to_name(), target_triplet});


Should this also calculate exclusions for the host triplet? For example:

qt-complicated:x64-linux=skip

and

foo:arm64-android -> qt-complicated:$host qt-complicated:$host -> qtbase[problem]:$host

where qtbase[problem]:x64-linux is a problem.

No, because this calculating what we morally give to the 'vcpkg install' inside 'ci', and we don't ever add host packages there. Any handling of host dependencies needs to happen in prune_entirely_known_action_branches (formerly known as reduce_action_plan)

ras0219-msft · 2025-10-29T16:54:57Z

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

        CreateInstallPlanOptions create_install_plan_options(
-            randomizer, host_triplet, UnsupportedPortAction::Warn, UseHeadVersion::No, Editable::No);
+            randomizer.get(), host_triplet, UnsupportedPortAction::Warn, UseHeadVersion::No, Editable::No);
        auto action_plan = compute_full_plan(


It seems like there's still an unfortunate result when a user makes a small deviation outside a correct plan. For example, adding a dependency to an excluded package. While we know by construction that the resulting CI plan is "invalid", there's a bad constraint amplification problem where one bad constraint (use the excluded package) gets amplified into all of the excluded package's transitive constraints (that got it excluded in the first place).

Probably not worth solving right now, because it would require the dependency calculator to become aware of exclusions and ignore transitive constraints.

As far as I know this problem is what we invented =pass for. I'm not sure what you mean by "invalid", that would still be a valid plan, even if it would be empty

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

Co-authored-by: Robert Schumacher <[email protected]>

…ures # Conflicts: # src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

…ures # Conflicts: # azure-pipelines/end-to-end-tests-dir/ci.ps1

…Cascade Also want to add some more test cases.

…ures

…the end.

…we consider "real" cascades equivalent to statically known cascades in reporting.

src/vcpkg/commands.test-features.cpp

BillyONeal · 2025-11-06T03:52:40Z

src/vcpkg/xunitwriter.cpp

+            case BuildResult::ExcludedByParent:
+            case BuildResult::ExcludedByDryRun:
+            case BuildResult::Unsupported:
+            case BuildResult::Cached: // should this be "Pass" instead?


This is a question for reviewers

I think it makes sense to have this match ExcludedByParent. I don't think ExcludedByParent should be Pass, so this LGTM.

BillyONeal · 2025-11-06T03:53:29Z

src/vcpkg/xunitwriter.cpp

                .line_break();
-        }

-        if (!test.features.empty())


Note that the "we know what features but don't know the ABI tag or vice versa" condition is no longer possible. If we know what features you have, that means we got a plan with you in it, which means we have an ABI hash. Otherwise we don't know either.

BillyONeal · 2025-11-06T03:55:35Z

azure-pipelines/end-to-end-tests-dir/ci.ps1

    throw "feature-not-sup's baseline pass entry should result in a regression because the port is not supported"
 }
-if (-not ($ErrorOutput.Contains("REGRESSION: dep-on-feature-not-sup:${Triplet} is marked as pass but one dependency is not supported for ${Triplet}."))) {
+if (-not ($ErrorOutput.Contains("REGRESSION: dep-on-feature-not-sup:${Triplet} cascaded, but it is required to pass. ("))) {


This is actually a change in behavior: before, a cascade implied by ci.baseline.txt behaved differently than a "surprise" cascade, the new behavior treats all cascades the same. I think the old behavior was a bug based on the fact that we were implementing how that stuff got reported multiple times and all cascades should be the same for reporting purposes.

The red bits are changed.

azure-pipelines/end-to-end-tests-dir/ci.ps1

BillyONeal · 2025-11-06T03:56:19Z

include/vcpkg/fwd/build.h

        Excluded,
+        ExcludedByParent,
+        ExcludedByDryRun,
+        Unsupported,
        CacheMissing,
+        Cached,


@ras0219-msft These are the names you said you wanted to bikeshed, go for it

BillyONeal · 2025-11-06T03:57:03Z

include/vcpkg/ci-baseline.h

                                     const CiBaselineData& cidata,
                                     const std::string* cifile,
-                                     bool allow_unexpected_passing,
-                                     bool is_independent);


RE: Removal of the "independent" concept, see discussion #1830

src/vcpkg/binarycaching.cpp

src/vcpkg-test/ci-baseline.cpp

src/vcpkg/commands.build.cpp

…ures # Conflicts: # azure-pipelines/end-to-end-tests-dir/ci.ps1

ras0219-msft

LGTM.

All comments are considerations that would be suitable to investigate in separate PRs.

ras0219-msft · 2025-11-11T22:31:47Z

src/vcpkg/xunitwriter.cpp

+                result_string = "Skip";
+                break;
+            case BuildResult::CacheMissing:
+            case BuildResult::Downloaded:


It seems unfortunate to have so many lines dedicated to an assertion buried deep in the formatting logic, since the code flaw is likely much higher up the stack. No change requested.

ras0219-msft · 2025-11-11T22:35:51Z

src/vcpkg/xunitwriter.cpp

    {
        StringLiteral result_string = "";
-        switch (test.result)
+        switch (test.ci_result.code)


This switch is long enough that a table lookup might be clearer. No change requested.

// Do we have 20 yet? using enum BuildResult; enum { error, pass, fail, skip }; static uint8_t codemap[] = { [Succeeded] = pass, [BuildFailed] = fail, [PostBuildChecksFailed] = fail, [FileConflicts] = fail, ... }; if (static_cast<int>(test.ci_result.code) > sizeof(codemap)) abort();

ras0219-msft · 2025-11-11T22:47:09Z

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

    };

-    struct UnknownCIPortsResults
+    struct CIPreBuildStatus


This type mixes logic results (known) with formatting results (report_lines / abis); it might be cleaner to reduce this to just std::map<PackageSpec, BuildResult> known; and have the report code deal with calculating report_lines / abis on the fly from the action_plan and/or excluded.

Request no change; consider follow-up PR.

and have the report code deal with calculating report_lines / abis on the fly from the action_plan and/or excluded

I tried to do this. Unfortunately that forces recalculating a bunch of information we have in the for loop on line 125; I considered mixing the formatting concern the lesser evil than duplicating that control flow.

ras0219-msft · 2025-11-12T21:19:35Z

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

-    void reduce_action_plan(ActionPlan& action_plan,
-                            const std::map<PackageSpec, BuildResult>& known,
-                            View<std::string> parent_hashes)
+    void prune_entirely_known_action_branches(ActionPlan& action_plan, const std::map<PackageSpec, BuildResult>& known)


Since known now must contain every spec in the action plan, should it be a simpler std::unique_ptr<BuildResult[]> or vector?

No changes requested.

known now must contain every spec in the action plan

known contains things not in the action plan as well which would make that somewhat painful

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

ras0219-msft · 2025-11-12T21:27:15Z

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

-                format_ci_result(r.first, r.second, cidata, ci_baseline_file_name, allow_unexpected_passing, true);
-            if (!msg.empty())
+            if (scfl->source_control_file->has_qualified_dependencies() ||
+                !scfl->source_control_file->core_paragraph->supports_expression.is_empty())


This should probably check features as well for qualified dependencies and supports expressions.

But I think this is just a performance optimization, not correctness.

I'm not sure but I didn't actually change this so I'm going to avoid changing it. (I just extracted this block as a function:

vcpkg-tool/src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

Lines 90 to 99 in 4819c23

std::vector<PackageSpec> packages_with_qualified_deps;

for (auto&& spec : specs)

{

auto&& scfl = provider.get_control_file(spec.package_spec.name()).value_or_exit(VCPKG_LINE_INFO);

if (scfl.source_control_file->has_qualified_dependencies() ||

!scfl.source_control_file->core_paragraph->supports_expression.is_empty())

{

packages_with_qualified_deps.push_back(spec.package_spec);

}

}

)

ras0219-msft · 2025-11-12T21:34:59Z

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

+        const TripletExclusions* target_triplet_exclusions = nullptr;
+        for (auto&& te : exclusions_map.triplets)
        {
-            msg::write_unlocalized_text_to_stderr(Color::none, output);
+            if (te.triplet == target_triplet)
+            {
+                target_triplet_exclusions = &te;
+                break;
+            }
        }


Suggested change

const TripletExclusions* target_triplet_exclusions = nullptr;

for (auto&& te : exclusions_map.triplets)

{

msg::write_unlocalized_text_to_stderr(Color::none, output);

if (te.triplet == target_triplet)

{

target_triplet_exclusions = &te;

break;

}

}

auto it = Util::find_if(exclusion_map.triplets, [&](auto& x) { return x.triplet == target_triplet; });

const TripletExclusions* target_triplet_exclusions = it != exclusion_map.triplets.end() ? &*it : nullptr;

Could also simplify target_triplet_exclusions to:

const SortedVector<std::string>* exclusions;

It's not that much shorter to do this and it involves lambdas which is a tiebreaker-against for me but I don't care THAT much so I applied it.

ras0219-msft · 2025-11-12T21:43:47Z

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

+            const auto parsed_object =
+                Json::parse(parent_hashes_text.content, parent_hashes_text.origin).value_or_exit(VCPKG_LINE_INFO);
+            const auto& parent_hashes_array = parsed_object.value.array(VCPKG_LINE_INFO);
+            for (const Json::Value& array_value : parent_hashes_array)
+            {
+                auto abi = array_value.object(VCPKG_LINE_INFO).get(JsonIdAbi);
+                Checks::check_exit(VCPKG_LINE_INFO, abi);
+                parent_hashes.insert(abi->string(VCPKG_LINE_INFO).to_string());
+            }


Might be nice to extract this as a function:

ExpectedL<std::unordered_set<std::string>> parse_parent_hashes(const std::string& text_content, int origin);

src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

Billy made a bit of a mistake in microsoft#1822 resulting in the blizzard of failures in https://dev.azure.com/vcpkg/public/_build/results?buildId=122788

Billy made a bit of a mistake in #1822 resulting in the blizzard of failures in https://dev.azure.com/vcpkg/public/_build/results?buildId=122788

BillyONeal added 3 commits October 21, 2025 14:12

Extract calculate_ci_requested_specs function and fix the bug.

ddf8c35

Added test sanity check.

39579e5

BillyONeal mentioned this pull request Oct 21, 2025

Fix deps of skipped ports getting added to the CI run #1821

Closed

BillyONeal added 3 commits October 23, 2025 14:46

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into ci-skip-baseline-feat…

d2e5ab3

…ures

Eliminate ExclusionsPredicate and extract RandomizerInstance.

13fa6bc

Deoptionalize package_abi()

7da5f07

BillyONeal marked this pull request as draft October 23, 2025 22:55

BillyONeal added 3 commits October 23, 2025 17:30

fixup ci randomizer

83286ec

Simplify exclusionmap slightly, also record intentionally excluded sp…

ef28223

…ecs.

wip

1177c7d

BillyONeal mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2025

Change output for regression of independent ports #794

Merged

ras0219-msft reviewed Oct 29, 2025

View reviewed changes

BillyONeal and others added 5 commits October 29, 2025 17:36

Update src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

f39e414

Co-authored-by: Robert Schumacher <[email protected]>

Apply suggestion from @ras0219-msft

afe1b14

Co-authored-by: Robert Schumacher <[email protected]>

Another @ras0219-msft suggestion

babd750

wip

aaa0ea7

wip

848b828

Neumann-A mentioned this pull request Nov 2, 2025

[Qt] Update to 6.9.2 microsoft/vcpkg#47735

Merged

BillyONeal added 4 commits November 3, 2025 19:06

wip

fa9941a

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into ci-skip-baseline-feat…

63aa137

…ures # Conflicts: # src/vcpkg/commands.ci.cpp

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into ci-skip-baseline-feat…

ec5581a

…ures # Conflicts: # azure-pipelines/end-to-end-tests-dir/ci.ps1

WIP every report mechanism working except msgCiBaselineUnexpectedFail…

5fa7e82

…Cascade Also want to add some more test cases.

BillyONeal added 3 commits November 5, 2025 15:49

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into ci-skip-baseline-feat…

502ea32

…ures

Fix remaining test failures, remove "all results" from the report at …

52c149c

…the end.

Test fixes. Note that CiBaselineUnexpectedPassCascade is deleted and …

f3befa5

…we consider "real" cascades equivalent to statically known cascades in reporting.

BillyONeal marked this pull request as ready for review November 6, 2025 03:46

BillyONeal commented Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/vcpkg/commands.test-features.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved

BillyONeal commented Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

azure-pipelines/end-to-end-tests-dir/ci.ps1 Show resolved Hide resolved

BillyONeal commented Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/vcpkg/binarycaching.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved

dg0yt mentioned this pull request Nov 6, 2025

Fix ci test changing VCPKG_ROOT/installed #1837

Merged

BillyONeal commented Nov 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/vcpkg-test/ci-baseline.cpp Show resolved Hide resolved

ras0219-msft reviewed Nov 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/vcpkg/commands.build.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

BillyONeal added 3 commits November 10, 2025 12:33

Use Throw-IfNonContains and add assertions for counts

4ca3651

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into ci-skip-baseline-feat…

20ea65c

…ures # Conflicts: # azure-pipelines/end-to-end-tests-dir/ci.ps1

Add xunit test.

788d96d

ras0219-msft previously approved these changes Nov 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

Code review feedback from @ras0219-msft

29ca402

BillyONeal dismissed ras0219-msft’s stale review via 29ca402 November 12, 2025 22:43

BillyONeal requested a review from ras0219-msft November 12, 2025 22:44

BillyONeal enabled auto-merge (squash) November 12, 2025 22:48

ras0219-msft approved these changes Nov 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

BillyONeal merged commit 0ebc9cd into microsoft:main Nov 13, 2025
9 of 13 checks passed

BillyONeal mentioned this pull request Nov 15, 2025

Release vcpkg-tool 2025-11-19. microsoft/vcpkg#48303

Merged

BillyONeal added a commit to BillyONeal/vcpkg-tool that referenced this pull request Nov 17, 2025

Fix =skip handling.

9384640

Billy made a bit of a mistake in microsoft#1822 resulting in the blizzard of failures in https://dev.azure.com/vcpkg/public/_build/results?buildId=122788

BillyONeal mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2025

Fix =skip handling. #1849

Merged

BillyONeal added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 17, 2025

Fix =skip handling. (#1849)

2b211d0

Billy made a bit of a mistake in #1822 resulting in the blizzard of failures in https://dev.azure.com/vcpkg/public/_build/results?buildId=122788

BillyONeal deleted the ci-skip-baseline-features branch November 25, 2025 18:27

	std::vector<PackageSpec> packages_with_qualified_deps;
	for (auto&& spec : specs)
	{
	auto&& scfl = provider.get_control_file(spec.package_spec.name()).value_or_exit(VCPKG_LINE_INFO);
	if (scfl.source_control_file->has_qualified_dependencies() \|\|
	!scfl.source_control_file->core_paragraph->supports_expression.is_empty())
	{
	packages_with_qualified_deps.push_back(spec.package_spec);
	}
	}

Don't include features from skipped ports in CI runs. #1822

Don't include features from skipped ports in CI runs. #1822

Uh oh!

Conversation

BillyONeal commented Oct 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

BillyONeal commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

BillyONeal commented Oct 21, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

BillyONeal commented Oct 21, 2025

Uh oh!

BillyONeal commented Oct 22, 2025

Uh oh!

BillyONeal commented Oct 22, 2025

Uh oh!

BillyONeal commented Oct 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Neumann-A commented Oct 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

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!

Uh oh!

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!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ras0219-msft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

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!

BillyONeal commented Oct 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading

BillyONeal commented Oct 21, 2025 •

edited

Loading