Apple Maps Guides

Sorry I mised your earlier response. It’s better to reply as a reply, rather than in the comments; see Quinn’s Top Ten DevForums Tips for this and other titbits. This suggests that while UDP packets reach the device, delivery to the process is suspended in background, which explains why the DTLS handshake cannot progress. Indeed. This is pretty fundamental to how iOS works. If your app moves to the background, iOS suspends it. It then can’t do anything until it gets resumed. It’ll be resumed when your app moves to the foreground. It can also be resumed in the background under specific criteria. However, traffic on a UDP socket is not one of those criteria. I talk more about this in iOS Background Execution Limits. Traditionally, VoIP apps use two different techniques for these two scenarios: For ring indication, they use one of the technologies that Kevin described above (VoIP push or Local push connectivity). For the actual conversation, they prevent the app from suspending by virtue of their active audio se

I’ve been waiting since January 31. I submitted several support tickets and made a few calls to Apple Support, but no response from the App Review team.

OK. In that case I don’t see any way to make this work )-: When you set an on-demand rule, connections that match that rule are held until the demand is satisfied. This makes sense when you think about the intended use case for on-demand rules, namely, a split VPN. Typically this pans out as follows: There’s a site that’s only available on the organisation’s intranet. The device manager deploys an on-demand VPN configuration to access that intranet. The user runs an app that connects to that site. The system treats that as demand and starts the VPN connection. And holds the app’s connection until the VPN connection is established. Once that’s done, it releases the app’s connection, which then connects to the site over the VPN. This yields an obvious chicken’n’problem when the VPN provider relies on a connection that also matches the on-demand rule. The system can avoid this problems if the provider does it directly, from within its own process. This is the same sort of logic that NECP uses to avoid VPN loops.

I can’t see how you’d make that work given that no third-party code can run at the FileVault unlock screen. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

[quote='876592022, Pushpak-Ambadkar123, /thread/815498?answerId=876592022#876592022, /profile/Pushpak-Ambadkar123'] how we can achieve same in case of NEURLFilterManager [/quote] This is just a special case of my previous answer: There are no configuration options like this with URL filter. If you’d like to see us add something for this, you should file an enhancement request explaining your requirements. Oh, one further point here. With URL filter it’s possible for third-party apps to opt in to filtering via the NEURLFilter type. What they do in the .deny case is up to them. You could imagine an extension to that API that returns the reason for the denial — so they could add that to their own custom UI — but that does present some privacy concerns. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

[quote='876583022, TChrist, /thread/813973?answerId=876583022#876583022, /profile/TChrist'] the Memory utilization increased again. [/quote] Bummer. But my previous advice still holds: If you continue to have problems with this on 26.4b1, it’s best to file a new bug with the details. Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = eskimo + 1 + @ + apple.com

[quote='876587022, rbmanian75, /thread/815676?answerId=876587022#876587022, /profile/rbmanian75'] I tried this and it works. [/quote] Yay! [quote='876587022, rbmanian75, /thread/815676?answerId=876587022#876587022, /profile/rbmanian75'] If i make this changes whether the app will pass the app review? [/quote] I don’t work for App Review and thus can’t make definitive statements about their policy. However, my experience is that App Review is very skeptical about any use of temporary exception entitlements. However, one valid use case is working around bugs, and so I think it’s worthwhile you attempting this here. You can improve your chances by limiting this entitlement claim to specific OS versions. You do that with the :before:MAJOR.MINOR clause, as illustrated by this page. Now, the question is, what to use for MAJOR.MINOR? The obvious choice here is 26.4, on the assumption that the bug in question will be fixed in some later seed of macOS 26.4 beta. However, I can’t guarantee that that will happen. And, i

[quote='876600022, anosidium, /thread/815819?answerId=876600022#876600022, /profile/anosidium'] You advised that I should enable all the settings. [/quote] Well, yes, if you read that one sentence in isolation. However, I made it clear that one specific setting, Enable Soft Mode for Memory Tagging, reduces security, so if you goal is security then enabling that is probably not a good choice (-: [quote='876600022, anosidium, /thread/815819?answerId=876600022#876600022, /profile/anosidium'] I am therefore inclined not to enable it. [/quote] Or you could profile your app and see if it makes a difference in pratice. That’s generally the best way to approach performance trade-offs. [quote='876600022, anosidium, /thread/815819?answerId=876600022#876600022, /profile/anosidium'] I am not entirely sure what is meant by logging in [Soft Mode] [/quote] Quoting Enabling enhanced security for your app: This entitlement makes hardware memory tagging operate in soft mode, where the system produces a simulated crash instead

I am absolutely sure yes, other members of this team have access to certificates on https://developer.apple.com/ Removing me and adding me back does not fix the issue. My account is also enrolled on an individual Apple Developer Program.