General: DevForums subtopic: App & System Services > Processes & Concurrency Processes & concurrency covers a number of different technologies: Background Tasks Resources Concurrency Resources — This includes Swift concurrency. Service Management Resources XPC Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

I would like to know whether BGContinuedProcessingTaskRequest supports executing asynchronous tasks internally, or if it can only execute synchronous tasks within BGContinuedProcessingTaskRequest? Our project is very complex, and we now need to use BGContinuedProcessingTaskRequest to perform some long-running operations when the app enters the background (such as video encoding/decoding & export). However, our export interface is an asynchronous function, for example video.export(callback: FinishCallback). This export call returns immediately, and when the export completes internally, it calls back through the passed-in callback. So when I call BGTaskScheduler.shared.register to register a BGContinuedProcessingTask, what should be the correct approach? Should I directly call video.export(nil) without any waiting, or should I wait for the export function to complete in the callback? For example: BGTaskScheduler.shared.register(forTaskWithIdentifier: "com.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx", using: nil) { task in guard let continuedTask = task as? BGContinuedProcessingTask else { task.setTaskCompleted(success: false) return } let scanner = SmartAssetsManager.shared let semaphore = DispatchSemaphore(value: 0) continuedTask.expirationHandler = { logError(items: "xwxdebug finished.") semaphore.signal() } logInfo(items: "xwxdebug start！") video.export { _ in semaphore.signal() } semaphore.wait() logError(items: "xwxdebug finished！") }

Hello! We are in the progress of migrating a large Swift 5.10 legacy code base over to use Swift 6.0 with Strict Concurrency checking. We have already stumbled across a few weird edge cases where the "guaranteed" @MainActor isolation is violated (such as with @objc #selector methods used with NotificationCenter). However, we recently found a new scenario where our app crashes accessing main actor isolated state on a background thread, and it was surprising that the compiler couldn't warn us. Minimal reproducible example: class ViewController: UIViewController { var isolatedStateString = "Some main actor isolated state" override func viewDidLoad() { exampleMethod() } /// Note: A `@MainActor` isolated method in a `@MainActor` isolated class. func exampleMethod() { testAsyncMethod() { [weak self] in // !!! Crash !!! MainActor.assertIsolated() // This callback inherits @MainActor from the class definition, but it is called on a background thread. // It is an error to mutate main actor isolated state off the main thread... self?.isolatedStateString = "Let me mutate my isolated state" } } func testAsyncMethod(completionHandler: (@escaping () -> Void)) { let group = DispatchGroup() let queue = DispatchQueue.global() // The compiler is totally fine with calling this on a background thread. group.notify(queue: queue) { completionHandler() } // The below code at least gives us a compiler warning to add `@Sendable` to our closure argument, which is helpful. // DispatchQueue.global().async { // completionHandler() // } } } The problem: In the above code, the completionHandler implementation inherits main actor isolation from the UIViewController class. However, when we call exampleMethod(), we crash because the completionHandler is called on a background thread via the DispatchGroup.notify(queue:). If were to instead use DispatchQueue.global().async (snippet at the bottom of the sample), the compiler helpfully warns us that completionHandler must be Sendable. Unfortunately, DispatchGroup's notify gives us no such compiler warnings. Thus, we crash at runtime. So my questions are: Why can't the compiler warn us about a potential problem with DispatchGroup().notify(queue:) like it can with DispatchQueue.global().async? How can we address this problem in a holistic way in our app, as it's a very simple mistake to make (with very bad consequences) while we migrate off GCD? I'm sure the broader answer here is "don't mix GCD and Concurrency", but unfortunately that's a little unavoidable as we migrate our large legacy code base! 🙂

Hi, I have been recently debugging the BGContinuedProcessingTask API and encountered some of the following issues. I hope you can provide some answers: First, let me explain my understanding of this API. I believe its purpose is to allow an app to trigger tasks that can be represented with progress indicators and require a certain amount of time to complete. After entering the background, these tasks can continue to be completed through the BGContinuedProcessingTask, preventing the system from terminating them before they are finished. In the launchHandler of the registration process, we only need to do a few things: Determine whether the actual business processing is still ongoing. Update the progress, title, and subtitle. Handle the expirationHandler. Set the task as completed. Here are some issues I encountered during my debugging process: After I called register and submit, the BGContinuedProcessingTask could not be triggered. The return values from my API calls were all normal. I tried different device models, and some could trigger the task normally, such as the 15 Pro Max and 12 Pro Max. However, there were also some models, such as the 17 Pro, 15 Pro, and 15, that could not trigger the task properly. Moreover, there was no additional error information to help locate the issue. The background task failed unexpectedly, but my app was still running normally. As I mentioned above, my launchHandler only retrieves the actual business status and updates it. If a background task fails unexpectedly while the app is still running normally, it can mislead users and degrade the user experience of the app. Others have also mentioned the issue of inconsistent behavior on devices that do not support Dynamic Island. On devices that support Dynamic Island, when a task is triggered in the foreground, the app does not immediately display a pop-up notification within the app. However, on devices that do not support Dynamic Island, the app directly displays a pop-up notification within the app, and this notification does not disappear when switching between different screens within the same app. The user needs to actively swipe up to dismiss it. I think this experience is too intrusive for users. I would like to know whether this will be maintained in the future or if there is a plan to fix it. On devices that do not support Dynamic Island, using the beta version 26.1 of the system, if the system is in dark mode but the app triggers a business interface in white, the pop-up notification will have the same color as the current page, making it difficult to read the content inside the pop-up. Users can actively stop background tasks by using the stop button, or the system can also stop tasks automatically when resources are insufficient or when a task is abnormal. However, according to the current API, all these actions are triggered through the expirationHandler. Currently, there is no way to distinguish whether the task was stopped by the user, by the system due to resource insufficiency, or due to an abnormal task. I would like to know whether there will be more information provided in the future to help distinguish these different scenarios. I believe that the user experience issues mentioned in points 2 and 3 are the most important. Please help to answer the questions and concerns above. Thank you!

Hello, I'm trying to adopt the new BGContinuedProcessingTask API, but I'm having a little trouble imagining how the API authors intended it be used. I saw the WWDC talk, but it lacked higher-level details about how to integrate this API, and I can't find a sample project. I notice that we can list wildcard background task identifiers in our Info.plist files now, and it appears this is to be used with continued tasks - a user might start one video encoding, then while it is ongoing, enqueue another one from the same app, and these tasks would have identifiers such as "MyApp.VideoEncoding.ABCD" and "MyApp.VideoEncoding.EFGH" to distinguish them. When it comes to implementing this, is the expectation that we: a) Register a single handler for the wildcard pattern, which then figures out how to fulfil each request from the identifier of the passed-in task instance? Or b) Register a unique handler for each instance of the wildcard pattern? Since you can't unregister handlers, any resources captured by the handler would be leaked, so you'd need to make sure you only register immediately before submission - in other words register + submit should always be called as a pair. Of course, I'd like to design my application to use this API as the authors intended it be used, but I'm just not entirely sure what that is. When I try to register a single handler for a wildcard pattern, the system rejects it at runtime (while allowing registrations for each instance of the pattern, indicating that at least my Info.plist is configured correctly). That points towards option B. If it is option B, it's potentially worth calling that out in documentation - or even better, perhaps introduce a new call just for BGContinuedProcessingTask instead of the separate register + submit calls? Thanks for your insight. K Aside: Also, it would be really nice if the handler closure would be async. Currently if you need to await on something, you need to launch an unstructured Task, but that causes issues since BGContinuedProcessingTask is not Sendable, so you can't pass it in to that Task to do things like update the title or mark the BGTask as complete.

TCC Permission Inheritance for Python Process Launched by Swift App in Enterprise Deployment We are developing an enterprise monitoring application that requires a hybrid Swift + Python architecture due to strict JAMF deployment restrictions. We must deploy a macOS application via ABM/App Store Connect, but our core monitoring logic is in a Python daemon. We need to understand the feasibility and best practices for TCC permission inheritance in this specific setup. Architecture Component Bundle ID Role Deployment Swift Launcher com.athena.AthenaSentry Requests TCC permissions, launches Python child process. Deployed via ABM/ASC. Python Daemon com.athena.AthenaSentry.Helper Core monitoring logic using sensitive APIs. Nested in Contents/Helpers/. Both bundles are signed with the same Developer ID and share the same Team ID. Required Permissions The Python daemon needs to access the following sensitive TCC-controlled services: Screen Recording (kTCCServiceScreenCapture) - for capturing screenshots. Input Monitoring (kTCCServiceListenEvent) - for keystroke/mouse monitoring. Accessibility (kTCCServiceAccessibility) - a prerequisite for Input Monitoring. Attempts & Workarounds We have attempted to resolve this using: Entitlement Inheritance: Added com.apple.security.inherit to the Helper's entitlements. Permission Proxy: Swift app maintains active event taps to try and "hold" the permissions for the child. Foreground Flow: Keeping the Swift app in the foreground during permission requests. Questions Is this architecture supported? Can a Swift parent app successfully request TCC permissions that a child process can then use? TCC Inheritance: What are the specific rules for TCC permission inheritance between parent/child processes in enterprise environment? What's the correct approach for this enterprise use case? Should we: Switch to a Single Swift App? (i.e., abandon the Python daemon and rewrite the core logic natively in Swift). Use XPC Services? (instead of launching the child process directly).

Hello, https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/802443 https://developer.apple.com/documentation/servicemanagement/updating-helper-executables-from-earlier-versions-of-macos https://developer.apple.com/documentation/ServiceManagement/updating-your-app-package-installer-to-use-the-new-service-management-api#Run-the-sample-launch-agent Read these. Earlier we had a setup with SMJobBless, now we have migrated to SMAppService. Everything is working fine, the new API seems easier to manage, but we are having issues with updating the daemon. I was wondering, what is the right process for updating a daemon from app side? What we are doing so far: App asks daemon for version If version is lower than expected: daemon.unregister(), wait a second and daemon.register() again. The why? We have noticed that unregistering/registering multiple times, of same daemon, can cause the daemon to stop working as expected. The daemon toggle in Mac Settings -> Login Items & Extensions can be on or off, but the app can still pickup daemon running, but no daemon running in Activity monitor. Registration/unregistration can start failing and nothing helps to resolve this, only reseting with sfltool resetbtm and a restart seems to does the job. This is usually noticeable for test users, testing same daemon version with different app builds. In production app, we also increase the bundle version of daemon in plist, in test apps we - don't. I haven't found any sources of how the update of pre-bundled app daemon should work. Initial idea is register/unregister, but from what I have observed, this seems to mess up after multiple registrations. I have a theory, that sending the daemon a command to kill itself after app update, would load the latest daemon. Also, I haven't observed for daemon, with different build versions to update automatically. What is the right way to update a daemon with SMAppService setup? Thank you in advance.

On macOS 15.7.1 I'm trying to install an XPC service outside the app (Developer ID). It mostly seems to go ok, but when I set Launch Constraints on Responsible, AMFI complains of a violation, saying the service is responsible for itself, and fails to launch. Removing that constraint (or adding the service itself to the constraint) works fine. The service is an optional download, and installed to /Users/Shared with a LaunchAgent specifying the MachService. The service is correctly launched and seems to pass all codesigning, notarization, and other checks, but the Responsible isn't set to the "calling" app. Is this broken, or working as intended?

XPC is the preferred inter-process communication (IPC) mechanism on Apple platforms. XPC has three APIs: The high-level NSXPCConnection API, for Objective-C and Swift The low-level Swift API, introduced with macOS 14 The low-level C API, which, while callable from all languages, works best with C-based languages General: Forums subtopic: App & System Services > Processes & Concurrency Forums tag: XPC Creating XPC services documentation NSXPCConnection class documentation Low-level API documentation XPC has extensive man pages — For the low-level API, start with the xpc man page; this is the original source for the XPC C API documentation and still contains titbits that you can’t find elsewhere. Also read the xpcservice.plist man page, which documents the property list format used by XPC services. Daemons and Services Programming Guide archived documentation WWDC 2012 Session 241 Cocoa Interprocess Communication with XPC — This is no longer available from the Apple Developer website )-: Technote 2083 Daemons and Agents — It hasn’t been updated in… well… decades, but it’s still remarkably relevant. TN3113 Testing and Debugging XPC Code With an Anonymous Listener XPC and App-to-App Communication forums post Validating Signature Of XPC Process forums post This forums post summarises the options for bidirectional communication This forums post explains the meaning of privileged flag Related tags include: Inter-process communication, for other IPC mechanisms Service Management, for installing and uninstalling Service Management login items, launchd agents, and launchd daemons Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

I have several combine pipelines in my watch and iPhone app. While background tasks on the iPhone work correctly (the combine pipelines all activate), on the watch the pipelines do not get activated. I have an internal log reporting that data is being fed to the sources but is not propagating to the sinks. Thoughts?

I've adopted the new BGContinuedProcessingTask in iOS 26, and it has mostly been working well in internal testing. However, in production I'm getting reports of the tasks failing when the app is put into the background. A bit of info on what I'm doing: I need to download a large amount of data (around 250 files) and process these files as they come down. The size of the files can vary: for some tasks each file might be around 10MB. For other tasks, the files might be 40MB. The processing is relatively lightweight, but the volume of data means the task can potentially take over an hour on slower internet connections (up to 10GB of data). I set the totalUnitCount based on the number of files to be downloaded, and I increment completedUnitCount each time a file is completed. After some experimentation, I've found that smaller tasks (e.g. 3GB, 10MB per file) seem to be okay, but larger tasks (e.g. 10GB, 40MB per file) seem to fail, usually just a few seconds after the task is backgrounded (and without even opening any other apps). I think I've even observed a case where the task expired while the app was foregrounded! I'm trying to understand what the rules are with BGContinuedProcessingTask and I can see at least four possibilities that might be relevant: Is it necessary to provide progress updates at some minimum rate? For my larger tasks, where each file is ~40MB, there might be 20 or 30 seconds between progress updates. Does this make it more likely that the task will be expired? For larger tasks, the total time to complete can be 60–90 mins on slower internet connections. Is there some maximum amount of time the task can run for? Does the system attempt some kind of estimate of the overall time to complete and expire the task on that basis? The processing on each file is relatively lightweight, so most of the time the async stream is awaiting the next file to come down. Does the OS monitor the intensity of workload and suspend the task if it appears to be idle? I've noticed that the task UI sometimes displays a message, something along the lines of "Do you want to continue this task?" with a "Continue" and "Stop" option. What happens if the user simply ignores or doesn't see this message? Even if I tap "Continue" the task still seems to fail sometimes. I've read the docs and watched the WWDC video, but there's not a whole lot of information on the specific issues I mention above. It would be great to get some clarity on this, and I'd also appreciate any advice on alternative ways I could approach my specific use case.

Hi, This post is coming from frustration of working on using BGContinuedProcessingTask for almost 2 weeks, trying to get it to actually complete in the background after the app is backgrounded. My process will randomlly finish and not finish and have no idea why. I'm properly using and setting task?.progress.totalUnitCount = [some number] task?.progress.completedUnitCount = [increment as processed] I know this, because it all looks propler as long as the app insn't backgrounded. So it's not a progress issue. The task will ALWAYS complete. The device has full power, as it is plugged in as I run from within Xcode. So, it's not a power issue. Yes, the process will take a few minutes, but I thought that is BGContinuedProcessingTask purpose in iOS 26. For long running process that a user could place in the background and leave the app, assuming the process would actually finish. Why bother introducing a feature that only works with short tasks that don't actually need long running time in the first place.

i am trying to create a daemon with xpc for my app by referring to https://github.com/alienator88/HelperToolApp but i keep getting XPC remote proxy error: Couldn’t communicate with a helper application. All the identifiers all correct but the helper code is not reached.

Hello, In a launched agent, I need to call into a third‑party library that may occasionally hang. At present, these calls are made from a separate thread, but if the thread hangs it cannot be terminated (pthread_cancel/pthread_kill are ineffective). Would Apple recommend isolating this functionality in a separate process that can be force‑terminated if it becomes unresponsive, or is there a preferred approach for handling such cases in launched agents? Can I use the system call fork() in launched agent? Thank you in advance!

When I use BGContinuedProcessingTask to submit a task, my iPhone 12 immediately shows a notification banner displaying the task’s progress. However, on my iPhone 15 Pro Max, there’s no response — the progress UI only appears in the Dynamic Island after I background the app. Why is there a difference in behavior between these two devices? Is it possible to control the UI so that the progress indicator only appears when the app moves to the background?

I am currently developing a macOS app that can show system HUDs in the Notch Till Sequoia I used to kill the OSDUIHelper process (which displays the default macOS Volume and Brightness control HUDs) - and replaced it with my app's HUDs But, it is not working on macOS Tahoe anymore as the OSDUIHelper process is no longer there due to the UI changes Has the process been renamed - or is there any other way to kill the process?

Hi, I am programming in C and would like to use Grand Central Dispatch for parallel computing (I mostly do physics based simulations). I remember there used to be example codes provided by Apple, but can't find those now. Instead I get the plain documentation. May anyone point me to the correct resources? It will be greatly appreciated. Thanks ☺.

Hi All, I'm working on an app that needs to connect to BLE device and on defined schedules download data from the device. the amount of data is segnificant and might take around a minute to download. we tought about utilizing both state restoration and preservation for app waking and scheduling (triggered by the ble peripheral) and BGTaskScheduler to schedule a task that will handle a long running task to manage the full data download. now, will this solution in general valid? isnt it a "hack" that goes around the 10s limit that state restoration enforces? i know there are limitations for BGTask (like when it runs, it might be terminated by the system etc) but considering that, can we proceed with this approach without breaching apple guidelines? thank you in advance!

Hi, I have a couple questions about background app refresh. First, is the function RefreshAppContentsOperation() where to implement code that needs to be run in the background? Second, despite importing BackgroundTasks, I am getting the error "cannot find operationQueue in scope". What can I do to resolve that? Thank you. func scheduleAppRefresh() { let request = BGAppRefreshTaskRequest(identifier: "peaceofmindmentalhealth.RoutineRefresh") // Fetch no earlier than 15 minutes from now. request.earliestBeginDate = Date(timeIntervalSinceNow: 15 * 60) do { try BGTaskScheduler.shared.submit(request) } catch { print("Could not schedule app refresh: \(error)") } } func handleAppRefresh(task: BGAppRefreshTask) { // Schedule a new refresh task. scheduleAppRefresh() // Create an operation that performs the main part of the background task. let operation = RefreshAppContentsOperation() // Provide the background task with an expiration handler that cancels the operation. task.expirationHandler = { operation.cancel() } // Inform the system that the background task is complete // when the operation completes. operation.completionBlock = { task.setTaskCompleted(success: !operation.isCancelled) } // Start the operation. operationQueue.addOperation(operation) } func RefreshAppContentsOperation() -> Operation { }

Hello, I have a question regarding the behavior of BGProcessingTaskRequest when the app is force-quit by the user via the App Switcher. Based on common understanding and various discussions — including the following Apple Developer Forum threads: Waking up an iOS app after app is … | Apple Developer Forums Will BGAppRefreshTaskRequest will … | Apple Developer Forums Background fetch after app is forc… | Apple Developer Forums …it is widely understood that iOS prevents background execution (such as background fetch, push notifications, or BGTaskScheduler) after a user force-quits an app via the App Switcher. However, in my app, I have observed that a scheduled BGProcessingTaskRequest still executes even after the app has been explicitly terminated via App Switcher. The task is scheduled using submit(_:error:), and it is clearly running some time after the app has been closed by the user. That said, the task does run, but it appears to operate under tighter constraints — for example, it may be allowed to run for a shorter duration, and network requests appear to be more restricted compared to when the app is not force-quit. My questions are: Are there any documented or undocumented exceptions that allow this kind of behavior after force-quit? Could this be a bug or a behavior change in recent iOS versions? (I am observing this on iOS 18.3, 18.4, and 18.5) Any insights, experiences, or clarifications from Apple engineers or fellow developers would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

First, our app communicates with our blood glucose monitor (CGM) using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). On an iPhone 14 Pro with iOS 26.0.1, Bluetooth communication works properly even when the app is in the background and locked. Even if the phone and CGM are disconnected, the app continues to scan in the background and reconnects when the phone and CGM are back in close proximity. It won't be dormant in the background or when the screen is locked. This effectively ensures that diabetic users can monitor their blood glucose levels in real time. However, after using iOS 26.0.1 on the iPhone 17, we've received user feedback about frequent disconnections in the background. Our logs indicate that Bluetooth communication is easily disconnected when switching to the background, and then easily dormant by the system, especially when the user's screen is locked. This situation significantly impacts users' blood glucose monitoring, and users are unacceptable. What can be done?