“eskimo”

iOS has a limited set of Wi-Fi APIs. See TN3111 iOS Wi-Fi API overview for a summary of what’s available. Regarding signal strength specifically, I address that head on in iOS Network Signal Strength. In short, you’re unlikely to be able to achieve your goal here. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

It’s hard to answer questions like this without knowing more about: The platforms you’re targeting — Features like this aren’t part of the Swift language, but rather come from the platform on which your code is running. So you’ll get different answers on, say, Apple platforms vs Linux or Windows. The data itself — How big is it? Does it have some sort of complex structure? Your sharing scope — Do you just want to store it on the device? Or share it between devices owned by the same user? Or share it between users? The operations on that data — Do you write to it more than you read? Do you need to issue complex queries against it? The threat model — Are you trying to prevent accidental leaks? Or protect the data from government-sponsor attackers? Or something in between? Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

[quote='820017021, marrgd, /thread/820017, /profile/marrgd'] I would like to open … in Swift Playground on iPad [/quote] I don’t think there’s a good way to do that these days. The copy of The Swift Programming Language (TSPL) you’re working from, the one published via Apple Books, is very old. Specifically, it’s associated with Swift 5.7 and the latest version, available on the Swift site itself, is for Swift 6.3: The Swift Programming Language Note The Apple Books version hasn’t been updated because TSPL moved to a DocC production pipeline, and that isn’t able to easily render to the document format required by Apple Books. Given the age of that copy of the TSPL, it’s not a surprise that the link it references [1] no longer works. I went looking for the equivalent link on the most recent TSPL, but there isn’t one. Here’s the corresponding page, but the note box with the link is gone. I think you could reasonably argue that we should bring this back. Normally I’d suggest you file a bug requesting exactly tha

This isn’t something we can help you with here on the forums. Rather, you need to seek help via official channels. For the details, see this post. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

[quote='880681022, KayleeSC, /thread/791352?answerId=880681022#880681022, /profile/KayleeSC'] I guess they can install my TestFlight? [/quote] Yes [1]. [quote='880681022, KayleeSC, /thread/791352?answerId=880681022#880681022, /profile/KayleeSC'] For all I know these might be TestFlight quirks … but I can’t risk it. [/quote] I agree with you there. My experience is that TestFlight is a very accurate representation of what you see on the App Store, so if things are failing in TestFlight then you have good reason to be concerned. [quote='880681022, KayleeSC, /thread/791352?answerId=880681022#880681022, /profile/KayleeSC'] I just submitted this as FB22281393 [/quote] Thanks. You attached a sysdiagnose log to that bug, but there was no context for that. Some questions: Did you have the VPN (Network Extension) for iOS/iPadOS debug profile installed when you took that log? See our Bug Reporting > Profiles and Logs for more about that. What failure is the log showing? You list four cases where you had problems, bu

[quote='880644022, alexfs123, /thread/819160?answerId=880644022#880644022, /profile/alexfs123'] after doing a Preview on a mounted drive a few times I'm not able to unmount it cleanly [/quote] What does lsof report? Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

AFAIK there’s no magic here. And I tried reproducing this on my main work Mac and didn’t have a problem. Specifically: On macOS 26.3.1, I downloaded the current 26.4rc seed (UniversalMac_26.4_25E243_Restore.ipsw). Using an off-the-shelf Virtualization framework app [1], I created a VM from that. It installed and booted, and I was able to run all the way through MacBuddy and get to the Finder. I’m not sure why this is failing in your environment. This Mac is production hardware that’s only ever run released system software (plus various Xcode beta seeds). When I wrote the above I hadn’t yet installed Xcode 26.4rc. So I installed that and repeated the test. It didn’t change anything. Things continued to work. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com [1] VirtualBuddy 2.1.

[quote='880707022, chapo213, /thread/818938?answerId=880707022#880707022, /profile/chapo213'] I need to support both use case (exec and dylib). [/quote] OK. [quote='880707022, chapo213, /thread/818938?answerId=880707022#880707022, /profile/chapo213'] [Library validation] does not apply in my scenario since the library is provided by a third party [/quote] I’d like to better understand that. It’s quite common for Mac apps to use libraries created by other developers, and they retain library validation by re-signing those libraries. Is there something preventing you from doing that in this case? The most obvious case where folks need to disable library validation is that their app supports in-process plug-ins, where those plug-ins are built and shipped by other third-party developers in a way that’s completely independent of the main app’s vendor. Is that what’s happening here? Because if you’re managing these plug-in releases then it’d be better to have you re-sign the plug-in and leave library validation enab

Thanks for bringing this to the forums. The com.apple.token keychain access group, aka kSecAttrAccessGroupToken, isn’t a normal keychain access group. Rather, it’s a special group that holds all of the credentials that the system finds in CryptoTokenKit (CTK) tokens. Given that, you can’t add credentials to this group directly. It is possible to create a persistent CTK token, that is, one that’s not tied to smart card hardware. If you do that then the credentials published by that token will be available to all apps that are set up to use token-based credentials. It’s not clear whether this approach will work for your ultimate goal: [quote='819445021, h-noto, /thread/819445, /profile/h-noto'] so that Microsoft Edge for iOS … can … use it for client certificate authentication [/quote] My advice is that you first prototype this with an actual smart card [1]. If you can get that working, it’d be worth exploring the virtual token option. Finally, if you’re curious how an app can work with token-based credentials,

[quote='819454021, oleksandr91, /thread/819454, /profile/oleksandr91'] Is this a known macOS bug? [/quote] I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this before. IIRC the problem was reported by a third-party developer and I found it super hard to reproduce, and thus I’m not sure if a bug got filed. Sorry to be vague about the details; I searched my records but was unable to track down the conversation. Anyway, it sounds like you can easily reproduce this. Given that, I think it make sense for you to file your own bug about it. Please post your bug number, just for the record. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

[quote='819449021, Team Tank Wars, /thread/819449, /profile/Team+Tank+Wars'] the remaining uploads do not proceed in the background and appear to be suspended. [/quote] Suspended forever? Or just a delayed? If you leave the watch in that state for a day, does it eventually attempt these stalled uploads? For context, there are URLSession and watchOS aspects to this. On the URLSession front, the system is free to delay background session transfer until an opportune time. While I have a lot less experience with this on the watchOS side, on iOS this often means that the transfer is deferred until overnight, when the device has both Wi-Fi and mains power. So I’m curious if the same thing is happening on the watch. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

It looks like you’re trying to report a bug. If so, the way to do that is via Feedback Assistant. See my Bug Reporting: How and Why? for a lot more info about that process. Please post your bug number, just for the record. FWIW, I’m seeing the same issue with Swift Playground 4.7 on my Mac, so this is not iPad specific. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

It’s not clear what you’re asking for here: Are you a developer who wants to use TestFlight to run a test programme? Are you a user whose been invited to a test programme by a developer? Are you a user who would like to be invited to a test programme by a developer? Or something else? Please clarify. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

[quote='819406021, eddiewangyw, /thread/819406, /profile/eddiewangyw'] With ad-hoc signing … the system treats each build as a new app. [/quote] Correct. If you’re curious about the mechanics of this, have a read of TN3127 Inside Code Signing: Requirements. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

[quote='819553021, robonaren, /thread/819553, /profile/robonaren'] my understanding is that root daemons typically don’t run sandboxed [/quote] Correct. While it is possible to enable the App Sandbox on a daemon, folks don’t normally do that. [quote='819553021, robonaren, /thread/819553, /profile/robonaren'] The plugin only connects to the legitimate daemon [/quote] The canonical way to do that is by setting the privileged flag. I have a link to an explanation of that in XPC Resources. You could also validate the peer’s signature. Again, I have a link to info about that in XPC Resources IMPORTANT This works in this direction because you control the daemon’s main executable. [quote='819553021, robonaren, /thread/819553, /profile/robonaren'] The daemon only accepts connections from trusted clients [/quote] There isn’t a good way to achieve this goal, presuming that this set of trusted clients includes an authorisation plug-in. The issue is that authorisation plug-ins are in-memory plug-ins, so you don’t control