file uri scheme

Please file your concerns using Feedback Assistant.

So using the class constructor is pretty much the only reasonable way around this. I'm marking this reply as the correct answer. You can also avoid the crash by setting UIDesignRequiresCompatibility to YES in your Info.plist and use the pre Liquid Glass UI. maybe I'd file a bug but I don't think Apple responded to like 95% of my Catalyst bugs I reported in the past. I must have reported more than a dozen so I'm not going to be filing this one. FYI if you migrate to the group class constructor... if you have to do any per item tweaks you can apparently just dig in the subitems array right after you create the GroupItem (to set different actions on particular subitems etc.) HOPEFULLY they don't release an update that breaks that.

We've observed that the I/O behavior differs drastically depending on whether it goes through the system file cache: Quick question— how are you validating what the actual issue is? More specifically, are you pulling, unmounting the device, and testing with a known good driver? Or are you testing with your development DEXT? That's crucial because testing through your DEXT means you don't know whether this is a write or a read issue. That leads to here: At the end of the operation, to ensure data is flushed to disk, the macOS file system issues an fsync, which is ultimately translated into a SYNCHRONIZE CACHE SCSI command (Opcode 0x35 or 0x91) and sent to our UserProcessParallelTask_Impl. Are you sure about that? How have you validated that? I haven't tried to validate the entire I/O path, but I’m fairly sure that copyfile() (what cp calls) does not call fsync(). FYI, the history here is somewhat complicated and “ugly, but in general, if the system were going specifically trying to flush data

Is the AASA file only consulted on a fresh install or would an upgrade potentially trigger a similar scenario? We've had some users with an existing passkey upgrade our app, immediately launch it and then not have their passkeys found. A subsequent start of the app seems to remedy the situation however.

Hi @durul The ability to access your enterprise license files directly within your Apple Developer account isn't available just yet. I'll follow up on this thread as soon as it is.

I think the tricky part here is what support here actually means. Yeah, I was actually having a bit of trouble trying to think of a title for this post (and for the aforementioned FB21068845). If either of those behave differently, then that's a HUGE bug that we'd need to fix ASAP. I didn't actually check those two (write isn't implemented at all in my filesystem). While it would take a little longer to check actual writes I just checked and FSBlockDeviceResource.isWritable is returning the correct value (false) when mounted as read-only, so I think that part is okay, at least! I think the best approach here is to support permissions (FSItemAttributeMode), and then ALWAYS return a configuration for all objects that prevents writing and fail any attempt to modify mode I actually have tried this. There's this code in my real project: if request.isAttributeWanted(.mode) { // FIXME: not correct way to enforce read-only file system but does FSKit currently have a better way? let useMode = readOnlySystem ?

Hi @sashamoroz, this is a known issue that the engineering team is currently investigating. You can also file a bug report through the Feedback Assistant to be notified when the original bug is closed. After filing the bug report, please post the bug number.

Are read-only filesystems currently supported by FSKit? I think the tricky part here is what support here actually means. Let me start by what this actually does: pass the -r or -o rdonly options to the mount(8) command. Passing that to mount should mean that the VFS layer itself is prevented from writing to the device. In FSKit terms, that means FSBlockDeviceResource.writable should be false and that all write methods should fail. If either of those behave differently, then that's a HUGE bug that we'd need to fix ASAP. However, the confusing point here is that mounting a volume readonly doesn't necessarily define/change how the file system presents itself to the higher level system. That is, strictly speaking, nothing prevents a volume being mounted readonly... but that file system itself allowing itself to be fully modifiable. That might sound a bit strange, but as a concrete example, you could implement a resettable file system by using the on-disk file system as the sta

This sounds like a possible regression. Can you file a feedback using Feedback Assistant and attach a sample project that reproduces the issue? Once you do, reply with the Feedback ID

Thank you for your post. So many questions that I’ll try to answer. iOS carefully manages link-handling preferences to strike a balance between user convenience and security. Here is an overview that may be helpful in addressing your questions. iOS stores link-handling preferences globally, associating domains with either applications or Safari through Universal Links. When Universal Links are utilized, iOS verifies permission by checking a specially configured file (apple-app-site-association) hosted on the associated domain. Uninstalling an application does not reset link-handling preferences, as iOS retains the domain association in its system-level storage. The association persists until manually overridden by the user or cleared through advanced methods (e.g., resetting all settings). In some instances, long-pressing a link in Safari allows the user to select “Open in App” temporarily, overriding the previous setting. Once a user selects “Open in App” or “Open in Browser,” iOS retains this choic

This sounds like a possible framework issue. Can you file a feedback through Feedback Assistant and attach a sample project that reproduces the issue? Once you do, reply with the Feedback ID.

If you want to provide more information and a way to extend the AlarmKit framework I would recommend to file an enhancement request. If you'd like us to consider adding the necessary functionality, please file an enhancement request using Feedback Assistant. Once you file the request, please post the FB number here. If you're not familiar with how to file enhancement requests, take a look at Bug Reporting: How and Why? Albert Pascual
  Worldwide Developer Relations.

Thank you for your post. If you disagree with the outcome of the review, we recommend submitting an appeal to the App Review Board. When filing your appeal, make sure to: Provide specific reasons why you believe your app complies with the App Review Guidelines. Submit only one appeal per rejection. Respond to any requests for additional information before submitting an appeal. Once you have submitted the appeal we can escalate it to the App Review Board for review. The App Review Board will contact you directly as soon as they've completed their investigation.

Hi, I have put together a pair of unit tests that run the same scenario against two separate language models: the Apple Foundation base model, my fine-tuned adapter model. While both are able to successfully complete a first prompt/reply turn, the LanguageModelSession that is running against the adapter model runs out of context window in turn 2. A very important nuance is that while both models operate with the same system prompt: a) for the unit test running against the base model, the system prompt is passed as instructions when instantiating the LanguageModelSession b) in the unit test running against the adapter model, the system prompt is baked into the training data. Here's the link to the analysis of the behaviour of the two tests and how they differ (compiled by Claude, as you'll no doubt detect from the superb over-confidence on display that is typical of AI agents) : https://github.com/MAOShea/Hello-World-Tools-Adapter-SwiftUI/blob/main/SUPPORT_REQUEST_TranscriptStorageDifference.md The two log files

More Context: Xcode 26.1.1 New standalone watchOS project - default settings. There is a project with two targets - an iOS target and a watchOS target. The iOS target is at default - no code added or taken away all certificates and profiles point to my distribution certificate and provisioning. The bundle_id's seem good. The Project and ios share a bundle id of com.myteam.myapp The watchOS bundle id is com.myteam.myapp.watchkitapp There are identifiers for both in App Store Connect. The app compiles and runs on the simulator with no errors, all sizes, all languages. I do not have a watch connected to the account, but the code has been tested and I can't imagine that the lack of a physical device is causing the problem The scheme has the 3 archs in top to botton project, ios, watchOS - all marked to do everything they can and everything I see is marked to release. This is my first swift program and xcode experience, so I am confident that the error is my understanding of the workflow. thank you anyone