We feel like we're at the end of the long and treacherous process of migrating to StoreKit2. But we've hit a small snag. When testing in the sandbox environment, we've found that if we don't finish a transactions, no subsequent purchase (invoked via call to purchase or the other purchase) will produce the confirmation sheet. Is this the expected behavior? The behavior is observed on iOS26 and 18. Our app will only attempt to finish the transaction if it successfully uploads the receipt to our API. If it fails to do so for whatever reason, the transaction is left unfinished. Whilst the user is informed about this, users will commonly try again. Our concern is that since the confirmation sheet will not be shown again, users will not know they are actually paying again - most certainly not the UX we want to have. We'd much rather have our users be fully aware when they're paying us money. The reason we're choosing not to finish the transaction until our backend has received it and confirmed the receipt to be valid is that the only way the user can get their product is if the server side is aware of this and add more time to the users account. When finishing the transaction via finish immediately after the purchase() call, the confirmation sheet is shown every time after subsequent calls to purchase(). Again, is this the expected behavior both in the sandbox and the production environments? Are we doing something wrong or misusing the product API? We are somewhat stumped because technically, we could get the first confirmation for a product purchase, and then finish it only after an arbitrary amount of calls to purchase() have been made - the user will believe they will have paid only once, but we will receive however much money we can drain from their account - most certainly not the kind of app we want to develop. Please advise and best regards, Emīls

When setting up a packet tunnel with a profile that has includeAllNetworks set to true, we seemingly cannot send any traffic inside the tunnel using any kind of an API. We've tried using BSD sockets, as we ping a host only reachable within the tunnel to establish whether we have connectivity - this does not work. When using NWConnection from the Network framework and specifying the required interface via virtualInterface from the packet tunnel, the connection state never reaches ready. Our interim solution is to, as ridiculous as it sounds, include a whole userspace networking stack so we can produce valid TCP packets just to send into our own tunnel. We require a TCP connection within our own tunnel to do some configuration during tunnel setup. Is there no better solution?

When installing a new version the app while a tunnel is connected, seemingly the old packet tunnel process gets stopped but the new one does not come back up. Reportedly, a path monitor is reporting that the device has no connectivity. Is this the expected behavior? When installing an update from TestFlight or the App store, the packet tunnel instance from the old tunnel is stopped, but, due to the profile being on-demand and incldueAllNetworks, the path monitoring believes the device has no connectivity - so the new app is never downloaded. Is this the expected behavior? During development, the old packet tunnel gets stopped, the new app is installed, but the new packet tunnel is never started. To start it, the user has to toggle the VPN twice from the Settings app. The tunnel could be started from the VPN app too, if we chose to not take the path monitor into account, but then the user still needs to attempt to start the tunnel twice - it only works on the second try. As far as we can tell, the first time around, the packet tunnel never gets started, the app receives an update about NEVPNStatus being set to disconnecting yet NEVPNConnection does not throw. The behavior I was naively expecting was that the packet tunnel process would be stopped only when the new app is fully downloaded and when the update is installed, Are we doing something horribly wrong here?