Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make update_in_place opt-in (true by default) #768

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

thiagohmcruz
Copy link
Contributor

@thiagohmcruz thiagohmcruz commented Sep 19, 2023

Due to the codesign issues being redirected here SwiftUI Previews will crash in Xcode (using rules_xcodeproj) with

Exception Type:  EXC_BAD_ACCESS (SIGKILL (Code Signature Invalid))

This happens only in vendored_xcframeworks that already provide the slices I need for Apple Silicon so planning to conditionally disable this update_in_place logic only in "SwiftUI Previews" builds.

More generally how are we supposed to handle this codesign errors in Debug builds where a provisioning_profile is not set? My suggestion is to allow this conditional behavior while we discuss this, happy to file an issue if needed.

Copy link
Contributor

@jerrymarino jerrymarino left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder if theres arm64_sim slice why it's running it through this in the first place.

The other potential is it might fit better to just give them an ad-hoc signature

@thiagohmcruz
Copy link
Contributor Author

thiagohmcruz commented Sep 19, 2023

I wonder if theres arm64_sim slice why it's running it through this in the first place.

@jerrymarino the internal dep I'm using to test contains these two slices in vendored_xcframeworks:

                    "identifier": "ios-arm64",
                    "platform": "ios",
                    "platform_variant": "",
                    "identifier": "ios-arm64_x86_64-simulator",
                    "platform": "ios",
                    "platform_variant": "simulator",

So IIUC it is supposed to hit this code path since import_middleman is created.

The other potential is it might fit better to just give them an ad-hoc signature

It's not clear to me how we would sign this in a generic way if it's not a device build, what would be the inputs to codesign? Also, I don't see a clear advantage in doing the ad-hoc signature vs allowing this behavior to be conditionally enabled?

@jerrymarino
Copy link
Contributor

I was more of thinking since it was a platform_variant simulator it doesn't need to be called - do you see what I mean? Othwerwise could try to do a force'd ad-hoc signature sans identity.

@thiagohmcruz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing in favor of #769

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants