feat: [ORTF] Auto reporting frequency by TaduJR · Pull Request #70615 · Expensify/App

TaduJR · 2025-09-15T22:43:41Z

Explanation of Change

This PR adds support for auto-reporting frequency formula components {report:autoreporting:start} and {report:autoreporting:end} in dynamic report titles.

Changes:

Formula Support for Auto-reporting Dates
- Added getAutoReportingDates() function in Formula.ts that calculates reporting period start/end dates based on policy auto-reporting frequency configuration
- Supports all auto-reporting frequencies: Weekly, Semi-monthly (Twice a month), Monthly, and By trip
- Handles monthly offset configurations including last business day of month
- Supports custom date formatting (e.g., {report:autoreporting:start:MMMM dd, yyyy})
Improved Report Title Input UX (@Expensify/design for UI changes review)
- Converted single-line input to auto-growing multiline TextArea for better visibility of long formulas
- Added support for viewing full formula text without horizontal scrolling
- Improved autofocus and input initialization
Formula Path Handling
- Updated computeReportPart() to use ...additionalPath pattern for handling multi-level formula paths (e.g., report:autoreporting:start:format)
- Ensures consistency with other formula components like submission info

Technical Details:

Weekly: Uses Monday as week start (aligns with CONST.WEEK_STARTS_ON)
Semi-monthly: Splits month into 1st-15th and 16th-end periods
Monthly: Supports numeric day offsets and special "last business day" configuration
Trip: Uses oldest transaction date as start, current date as end
All dates use proper start-of-day (00:00:00) and end-of-day (23:59:59) boundaries

Fixed Issues

$ #68961
PROPOSAL: #68961 (comment)

Tests

Prerequisites:

Ensure you have the beta enabled in OldDot staging:
- Sign in to staging.expensify.com/inbox
- Open JS console and run: SSetNameValuePair('useCustomReportNamesNewExpensify', 'true');
- Reload and verify: g_account.nameValuePairs.useCustomReportNamesNewExpensify; returns 'true'
Log in to New Expensify staging after enabling the beta

Test Case 1: Weekly Auto-reporting

Create a new workspace or use an existing one
Go to workspace settings → Reports → Auto-reporting frequency
Set frequency to Weekly
Go to Reports → Report title format
Enter: Week of {report:autoreporting:start} to {report:autoreporting:end}
Save and create a manual expense on the workspace
Verify the report title shows the current week range (Monday to Sunday)
Verify dates update correctly when viewing in different weeks

Test Case 2: Semi-monthly (Twice a month) Auto-reporting

Use the same workspace or create new one
Set auto-reporting frequency to Twice a month
Set report title to: Period: {report:autoreporting:start:MM/dd/yyyy} - {report:autoreporting:end:MM/dd/yyyy}
Create an expense
If today is 1st-15th: Verify report shows dates from 1st to 15th of current month
If today is 16th-end: Verify report shows dates from 16th to last day of current month

Test Case 3: Monthly Auto-reporting with Day Offset

Set auto-reporting frequency to Monthly
Set reporting day offset to 15 (reports close on the 15th of each month)
Set report title to: {report:autoreporting:start:MMMM dd} to {report:autoreporting:end:MMMM dd, yyyy}
Create an expense
If before the 15th: Verify dates show previous month's 16th to current month's 15th
If after the 15th: Verify dates show current month's 16th to next month's 15th

Test Case 4: Monthly with Last Business Day

Set auto-reporting frequency to Monthly
Set reporting day to Last business day of month
Set report title to: Monthly Report - {report:autoreporting:start} to {report:autoreporting:end}
Create an expense
Verify start date is the 1st of current month
Verify end date is the last weekday (Mon-Fri) of current month

Test Case 5: Trip-based Auto-reporting

Set auto-reporting frequency to By trip
Set report title to: Trip from {report:autoreporting:start:MMM dd} to {report:autoreporting:end:MMM dd, yyyy}
Create multiple expenses with different dates
Verify start date matches the oldest expense date
Verify end date matches the current date (or most recent expense)

Test Case 6: Report Title Input UX

Go to workspace settings → Reports → Report title format
Enter a long formula: Report for {report:autoreporting:start:MMMM dd, yyyy} to {report:autoreporting:end:MMMM dd, yyyy} - {report:policyname}
Verify the input expands to show all text without horizontal scrolling
Verify you can see the entire formula at once
Verify the input auto-focuses when the page loads

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."
Same as tests

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

melvin-bot · 2025-09-15T22:44:13Z

@Beamanator Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

Beamanator · 2025-09-16T21:00:29Z

Code looks good to me, but i believe @allroundexperts you're the C+ assigned here & @Valforte you're the internal engineer assigned here

Valforte · 2025-09-18T14:43:24Z

waiting on the review from @allroundexperts . Meanwhile can you merge main to fix the conflicts @TaduJR ?

allroundexperts · 2025-09-18T19:24:26Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified that the composer does not automatically focus or open the keyboard on mobile unless explicitly intended. This includes checking that returning the app from the background does not unexpectedly open the keyboard.
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: HybridApp
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: HybridApp
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
For any bug fix or new feature in this PR, I verified that sufficient unit tests are included to prevent regressions in this flow.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: HybridApp

Screen.Recording.2025-10-27.at.2.16.34.AM.mov

Android: mWeb Chrome

Screen.Recording.2025-10-27.at.2.05.59.AM.mov

iOS: HybridApp

iOS: mWeb Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-10-27.at.2.03.24.AM.mov

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

Screen.Recording.2025-10-27.at.1.50.22.AM.mov

MacOS: Desktop

Screen.Recording.2025-10-27.at.1.54.25.AM.mov

TaduJR · 2025-09-19T06:18:11Z

@Beamanator @Valforte @allroundexperts

I migrated from populateOptimisticReportFormula ReportUtils to Formula according to this comment

TaduJR · 2025-09-19T08:17:30Z

@neil-marcellini I think we should increase the Report Title input character limit. For example if I want to set Week of {report:autoreporting:start} to {report:autoreporting:end}, I can't because of the character limit. We should increase it or use TextArea for better UI experience because I can't view all the formulas in one time other than going to the end.

Valforte · 2025-09-22T17:12:23Z

We would need input from @Expensify/design , can you take a look at @TaduJR last comment?

neil-marcellini · 2025-09-22T23:08:01Z

Yeah. The backend has a character limit of 500. Using a text area sounds like a good idea to me too.

dubielzyk-expensify · 2025-09-23T01:31:34Z

Interesting. Not against using a text area here. I think generally a regular input is good because it lets the user know that a shorter one is better, but given we have formulas it gets very hard to use. I'm up for the change, but curious to hear what the other designers think

shawnborton · 2025-09-23T06:39:37Z

I think I might lean towards the textarea, because:

our textareas start off quite short if I recall, and autogrow to the content
it seems like a pretty simple, standard custom report title just won't fit in a regular input, so it seems like this experience is going to be not so great for virtually all users who do this

Valforte · 2025-09-23T13:40:59Z

Thanks everyone for the input here! @TaduJR please update it to a textarea then

TaduJR · 2025-09-24T03:23:52Z

Glad we are all on the same page.

@TaduJR please update it to a textarea then

On it

TaduJR · 2025-09-25T13:46:27Z

@TaduJR please update it to a textarea then

Done.

Valforte · 2025-09-26T15:27:10Z

@allroundexperts can you review and work on the checklist please?

codecov · 2025-09-28T10:17:56Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 22 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/libs/Formula.ts	77.64%	19 Missing ⚠️
...rc/pages/workspace/reports/ReportsDefaultTitle.tsx	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...rc/pages/workspace/reports/ReportsDefaultTitle.tsx	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
src/libs/Formula.ts	`82.63% <77.64%> (-1.88%)`	⬇️

... and 8 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

TaduJR · 2025-09-28T15:48:55Z

⚠️ Backend Support Required

During testing, I discovered that while the frontend correctly computes these formulas, the backend doesn't recognize them and returns raw formulas instead of computed values.

Evidence from Server Responses

1. Working Formula ({report:submit:from} - already supported by backend):

{
  "reportName": "Natu 3",  // ✅ Computed by backend
  "expensify_text_title": {
    "defaultValue": "{report:submit:from}",
    "value": "Natu 3"  // ✅ Backend computed the value
  }
}

Not Working ({report:autoreporting:start} - not recognized by backend):

{
  "reportName": "{report:autoreporting:start}",  // ❌ Raw formula returned
  "expensify_text_title": {
    "defaultValue": "{report:autoreporting:start}",
    "value": "{report:autoreporting:start}"  // ❌ Backend didn't compute
  }
}

The issue occurs because:

1: Backend doesn't recognize the formula: The server doesn't have handlers for {report:autoreporting:start} or {report:autoreporting:end}
2. Server response overwrites: The backend returns the raw formula in the API response, overwriting the frontend's computed value

Here's the flow:
User creates report → Frontend computes "2025-09-28" → Shows correctly briefly
→ API call to backend → Backend returns raw "{report:autoreporting:start}"
→ Onyx updates → UI shows raw formula ❌

The backend needs to:

Add formula handlers for:
- {report:autoreporting:start}
- {report:autoreporting:end}
Implement date calculation logic based on:
- Policy's autoReportingFrequency (immediate, weekly, monthly, etc.)
- Policy's autoReportingOffset (for monthly reporting)

TaduJR · 2025-09-28T15:51:35Z

FYI the auto reporting frequency backend was working but its not working since yesterday/before yesterday. I found this when I was about to record the demo today.

allroundexperts · 2025-09-28T20:34:25Z

@TaduJR Please complete the checklist. You're missing the screen recordings.

neil-marcellini · 2025-09-29T17:27:46Z

FYI the auto reporting frequency backend was working but its not working since yesterday/before yesterday. I found this when I was about to record the demo today.

Hi, what do you mean? Can you please describe the test steps, actual and expected result? If there's a true backend problem I'll create an issue and get it fixed.

TaduJR · 2025-10-24T09:26:58Z

@allroundexperts Merged with main. Thank you.

allroundexperts · 2025-10-26T20:46:14Z

@TaduJR Can you please complete the checklist?

allroundexperts · 2025-10-26T21:48:27Z

@TaduJR Is this expected to work in offline mode as well? Because it does not work when offline.

Screen.Recording.2025-10-27.at.2.46.06.AM.mov

TaduJR · 2025-10-27T06:56:19Z

@TaduJR Is this expected to work in offline mode as well? Because it does not work when offline.

@allroundexperts Yes it is expected. Did you forget to do the prerequisites that I wrote on the PR test preconditions?

TaduJR · 2025-10-27T07:58:32Z

@TaduJR Can you please complete the checklist?

@allroundexperts Of course, Please checkout this comment

allroundexperts · 2025-10-28T23:37:07Z

@allroundexperts Yes it is expected. Did you forget to do the prerequisites that I wrote on the PR test preconditions?

I did those steps. It works fine when online.

allroundexperts · 2025-10-28T23:38:02Z

Before adding screen demos, let me know if you all agree with the Test setups to know if they cover all the cases. Because I am recording based on the Test steps

Thank you

Seems fine to me. @neil-marcellini can you do a buddy check here?

TaduJR · 2025-10-29T11:12:35Z

@allroundexperts Just to double check. You did enable the beta by returning true just after line 18 right?

App/src/libs/Permissions.ts

Lines 18 to 29 in bceff96

    
           function isBetaEnabled(beta: Beta, betas: OnyxEntry<Beta[]>, betaConfiguration?: OnyxEntry<BetaConfiguration>): boolean { 
        
               const hasAllBetasEnabled = canUseAllBetas(betas); 
        
               const isFeatureEnabled = !!betas?.includes(beta); 
        
               // Explicit only betas and exclusion betas are not enabled only by the 'all' beta. Explicit only betas must be set explicitly to enable the feature. 
        
               // Exclusion betas are designed to disable features, so being on the 'all' beta should not disable these features as that contradicts its purpose. 
        
               if (((betaConfiguration?.explicitOnly?.includes(beta) ?? false) || (betaConfiguration?.exclusion?.includes(beta) ?? false)) && hasAllBetasEnabled && !isFeatureEnabled) { 
        
                   return false; 
        
               } 
        
               return isFeatureEnabled || hasAllBetasEnabled; 
        
           }

allroundexperts · 2025-10-30T19:37:53Z

Hm... I did. That's why it worked in the online mode. Can you record a video of it working when offline?

TaduJR · 2025-10-30T22:57:09Z

Hm... I did. That's why it worked in the online mode. Can you record a video of it working when offline?

Here https://www.loom.com/share/3e8c5707a06042c182874545624ae5ec

OSBotify · 2025-11-04T18:17:32Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

OSBotify · 2025-11-04T21:13:11Z

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/Valforte in version: 9.2.44-0 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅

mitarachim · 2025-11-05T05:23:06Z

@TaduJR This PR (Test case 5) is failing because of a regression issue #74268

The issue is reproducible in: all platform

Bug6994533_1762317959153.Report_name_for_TRip_is_not_correct_as_formula.mp4

OSBotify · 2025-11-05T20:06:36Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/luacmartins in version: 9.2.44-5 🚀

platform	result
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	failure ❌

TaduJR requested a review from a team as a code owner September 15, 2025 22:43

melvin-bot Bot assigned TaduJR Sep 15, 2025

melvin-bot Bot requested review from Beamanator and removed request for a team September 15, 2025 22:44

TaduJR force-pushed the feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency branch from 311fca5 to 0c2c70e Compare September 15, 2025 23:37

Beamanator requested review from Valforte and allroundexperts September 16, 2025 21:00

TaduJR force-pushed the feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency branch from 5eb9c62 to 9c911f8 Compare September 19, 2025 05:14

Valforte requested a review from a team September 22, 2025 18:37

TaduJR force-pushed the feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency branch from 0b7c3e4 to 2ebaa3f Compare September 25, 2025 13:21

TaduJR force-pushed the feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency branch from ed65c57 to bac7a58 Compare September 29, 2025 16:45

fix: linter error

1c93961

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency

0258ba8

TaduJR added 2 commits October 30, 2025 09:37

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency

9a52d5b

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency

0eeaa31

TaduJR added 4 commits October 31, 2025 16:25

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency

742066a

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency

4636e4a

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency

befbad5

Merge branch 'Expensify:main' into feat-ORTF-Auto-reporting-frequency

3db4630

allroundexperts approved these changes Nov 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

Valforte approved these changes Nov 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

Valforte merged commit 70d954e into Expensify:main Nov 4, 2025
26 checks passed

OSBotify mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2025

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2025-11-04 #74235

Closed

56 tasks

mitarachim mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2025

[$250] Start & End date does not matches Title format with Trip-based Auto-reporting #74268

Open

8 tasks

TaduJR mentioned this pull request Nov 7, 2025

follow-up: Start & End date does not matches Title format with Trip-based Auto-reporting #74570

Merged

54 tasks

mdneyazahmad mentioned this pull request Nov 12, 2025

[Due for payment 2025-12-04] [$250] Reports - Default report title field accepts multiline title and renders mark down #74899

Closed

8 tasks

TaduJR mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2025

fix: Reports - Default report title field accepts multiline title and renders mark down #75815

Merged

54 tasks

Conversation

TaduJR commented Sep 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

melvin-bot Bot commented Sep 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Beamanator commented Sep 16, 2025

Uh oh!

Valforte commented Sep 18, 2025

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Sep 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Sep 19, 2025

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Sep 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Valforte commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

neil-marcellini commented Sep 22, 2025

Uh oh!

dubielzyk-expensify commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

shawnborton commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

Valforte commented Sep 23, 2025

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Sep 24, 2025

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

Valforte commented Sep 26, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Sep 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Sep 28, 2025

⚠️ Backend Support Required

Evidence from Server Responses

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Sep 28, 2025

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Sep 28, 2025

Uh oh!

neil-marcellini commented Sep 29, 2025

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Oct 26, 2025

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Oct 26, 2025

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Oct 27, 2025

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Oct 27, 2025

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Oct 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Oct 28, 2025

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Oct 29, 2025

Uh oh!

allroundexperts commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

OSBotify commented Nov 4, 2025

Uh oh!

TaduJR commented Sep 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

allroundexperts commented Sep 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Sep 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading

allroundexperts commented Oct 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading