“file uri scheme”

Hello, I am following up on several notarization requests in order to understand the process better. I submitted my first notary request yesterday and it took several hours to complete (where I submitted two other requests along the way thinking they may be stuck). They were all accepted after ~3 hours had passed since the first request was made. In that time I discovered a bug and had to rebuild/codesign, and submitted to notarize again. I've now had two requests with the new build (.zip file) in progress for ~18 hours. The bug fix I made between builds was innocuous and I'm wondering if my jobs are getting flagged due to recent account lockouts when I was first setting up my organizations' developer account. I've seen several replies here in the forum from DTS Engineers - hi Quinn :), so I'm aware of the possibility of 'rare' in-depth analysis, however I've experienced it in 100% of my requests. What is causing my requests to always require in-depth analysis and is there anything I can do to preven

Testing copyfile on a folder on an external volume (which takes a bit a of time) I'm running into an issue where copyfile gets to the end of the operation and then just fails. In the callback I can see that the failure occurs on a .DS_Store file inside the folder. So for a .DS_Store it is simple enough for me to just ignore the error and return COPYFILE_SKIP but the somewhat more concerning issue here is that the true error reason is seemingly not reported? In the callback if I read errno it is 0. When copyfile returns it returns -1 after I return COPYFILE_QUIT (and errno is 0) so I don't know what the error is or the appropriate way to handle it. For .DS_Store just skipping seems reasonable but when copying a folder it may be appropriate to get the true failure reason. But checking the last path component of source path seems like a hack way to handle errors. If a file in the copying folder with important user data I can't just silently skip it - it isn't clear to me how I should properly p