Unable to Verify App An internet connection is required to verify trust of the developer "Apple Development: John Doe (ABCXYZ123)". This app will not be available until verified. I've been getting this constantly over the last few weeks. It has been a real struggle to get anything done. Sometimes it goes away on its own after I try to launch the app a few times, but currently it's just staying down and I can't do any work. Apparently there were issues with some Apple server ppq.apple.com before. They seem to be back, because trying again right now: ping ppq.apple.com PING use1-ppq-ext-prod.apple.com (17.33.200.235): 56 data bytes Request timeout for icmp_seq 0 Request timeout for icmp_seq 1 ^C --- use1-ppq-ext-prod.apple.com ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss ping apple.com PING apple.com (17.253.144.10): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 17.253.144.10: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=9.776 ms 64 bytes from 17.253.144.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=8.726 ms ^C --- apple.com ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 8.726/9.251/9.776/0.525 ms This is incredibly disruptive. Surely there must be a way to disable this online verification? This is a development device that never leaves my desk and never installs any software except the things I build locally from my Mac (which I have trusted on the device).

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.

Hi, Previously, we would conform model objects to the ObservableObject protocol and use the @StateObject property wrapper when storing them to an owned binding in a View. Now, if I understand correctly, it is recommended that we use the new @Observable macro/protocol in place of ObservableObject and use the @State property wrapper rather than @StateObject. This is my understanding from documentation articles such as Migrating from the Observable Object protocol to the Observable macro. However, the StateObject property wrapper has an initialiser which takes an autoclosure parameter: extension StateObject { public init(wrappedValue thunk: @autoclosure @escaping () -> ObjectType) } This is an extremely important initialiser for state objects that are expensive to allocate. As far as I can tell, the @State property wrapper lacks an equivalent initialiser. What is the recommended migration strategy for objects which made use of this on StateObject? Thanks