Make sure to file a bug for that. On my device it works fine, so make sure to include a sysdiagnose.

[quote='757123021, bawenang_appfuxion, /thread/757123, /profile/bawenang_appfuxion'] because no class named "cdx_ios.AuthObject" was found; [/quote] Could you check that the file that contains AuthObject's definition is included in your second target? You can do this in Xcode by using the inspector area on the right (Identity inspector - Target Membership) when you're viewing that file.

I'm sorry for what happened to you. I'm no expert, so take this with a grain of salt. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this matter :) . Here's my take on this. Apple Support advised me to keep the device on my account to stop the crooks from activating it. I think that's the best thing to do right now - leaving Activation Lock on - since turning it off will allow them to use it. There's still a chance you'll be able to retrieve your device. Right now, I think you should focus on the legal procedures in your area regarding this kind of events, so you can maximise the chances of recovering your Vision Pro. You can always remove it from your account later if you're unable to recover your device. During the time you had your device on your account, it's quite unlikely that they would've been able to recover personal data, since developing a bypass for security measures like the ones on the Vision Pro usually takes a while. Is keeping the VisionPro (running a 2.0 beta) active on my personal iCloud account indefinitely like this okay Security wise, it should be safe, maybe even safer than visionOS 1, as it might include some security features and improvements that will be available in the autumn release. Of course, with new beta features there's always a risk for introducing new vulnerabilities, but I don't think Activation Lock is particularly affected by these changes. If one found a security vulnerability in activation lock / optic ID, I'd say there's a big chance it would be available on both visionOS 1 and 2. a risk to my private data and ID? Activation Lock prevents them from using the device even if they reset it. And if they reset the device, there's likely no way they can access your private data: the on device-data was erased, and they cannot use the Vision Pro to connect to your iCloud account - in fact, all it does is it requires them to login to your account to use the device. So the question is what happens if they don't reset the device, since bypassing optic ID would give them access to your iCloud account and on-device data. Removing your device from your account would revoke access to your iCloud, but is it likely they will bypass optic ID? Assuming the thief isn't a security expert, I think your personal data is fine. And even if they were an expert, they would need to find / wait for a vulnerability that bypasses activation lock / optic ID, which would take some time to develop. If they were able to find one, I think they would be able to afford a Vision Pro.

@Developer Tools Engineer that makes sense and alligns with the dangling references error i found in the runtime. I think that could be the cause. I wanted to add that I didn't notice the following function when I sent my second reply on this thread: [quote='756823021, jvigneshcs, /thread/756823, /profile/jvigneshcs'] mutating func value<T>(execute task: (inout Value) throws -> T) rethrows -> T { try lock.write { try task(&_value) } } [/quote] So yes, _timedEvents.value { $0 = newValue } is correct (and if it wasn't, it should've turned in a compile-time error). Sorry for the confusion. If anyone from Apple could remove the " Recommended" tag from my message I would appreciate it, as I was wrong. :)

Make sure to file a feedback for this and link it here. I think it's good that this pop-up after restart exists, since one could forget that they gave access to a remote desktop app. Maybe a setting to prevent these kind of appearing again after restart / give you an option to select for how much time you'd like to give access (such as an hour / a day / a week / indefinitely etc.) would be helpful.

Maybe this will be a program just like the SRD? [quote='756836021, flexorium, /thread/756836, /profile/flexorium'] Who at Apple should I keep in touch with and what is the best way to communite with that team. [/quote] If you want to keep in touch with the Product Security team, their email address is product-security@apple.com, and they also have a PGP key (since you can send vulnerability reports which are sensitive in nature). They'll definitely make more announcements on this in the future, so keep an eye on the security research website.

I had a similar issue on Monday when I tried to create a post with the Apple Intelligence label. Anything posted with this tag resulted in a sensitive content warning. To answer your question in the gist, I believe Apple Intelligence features will be available in a later beta.

[quote='756823021, jvigneshcs, /thread/756823, /profile/jvigneshcs'] var value: Value { lock.read { _value } } [/quote] Isn't SynchronizedBarrier<Value>.value a read-only computed property (i.e. doesn't have a setter), and thus you can't set _timedEvents.value to a new value using _timedEvents.value { $0 = newValue }? I'd try changing SynchronizedBarrier<Value>.value to this: var value: Value { get { lock.read { _value } } set { lock.write { _value = newValue } } } I haven't tested it, so let me know if this works or not.

[quote='756823021, jvigneshcs, /thread/756823, /profile/jvigneshcs'] _timedEvents.value { $0 = newValue } [/quote] I'm curious, is there a reason why _timedEvents.value = newValue doesn't work? Never mind, I think I understand now. Looking at the crash report and at the Swift runtime, it seems that something results in a dangling reference, since it calls fatalError with this description: swift::fatalError(0, "Object %p of class %s deallocated with non-zero retain " "count %zd. This object's deinit, or something called " "from it, may have created a strong reference to self " "which outlived deinit, resulting in a dangling " "reference.\n", object, descriptor ? descriptor->Name.get() : "<unknown>", retainCount); I think the way you're using nested computed properties somehow results in a dangling reference. Perhaps the object causing this is newValue, though I'm not sure. Maybe you could reproduce the issue and record the logs with the Console app on Mac to see if you find any other clues?

Maybe you could record system log messages and filter the irrelevant ones with the Console app to find out more about the error behind this? As a workaround, you can install Xcode 16 on the host and send your binaries / app to your VM (you could use File Sharing), though setting up remote debugging will require additional steps.

I got the same dialogue and error (using the Restore Image from the downloads website). Perhaps you need a macOS 15 host as well.

I'm curious, why don't you book a WWDC lab for that question and other related ones you may have? Perhaps "App Store business and marketing consultation" is the lab you're looking for.

Of course, the new UI should be preferred when users are supposed to create their images with prompts. I'm asking if I could use the generative image model behind this feature for my app to automatically generate a few images based on the context / image suggestions. Also, apparently, creating a new post with the Apple Intelligence label results in a sensitive content error and won't allow posting it.

I think it would be better to post your app's crash report, though you included most of its information in your post already. Running an INSERT or DELETE with the exec() method does not result in an exception; we just get an error saying that the table in the command does not exist. This makes me think there's an error accessing the database file, though I am not sure. exec() crashes when it gets to sqlite3VdbeMemGrow in the sqlite3VdbeMemStringify call. It seems like a memory allocation-related segfault bug in SQLite (somewhere here, to be precise: https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/src/vdbemem.c#L242), so I'm not sure what Xcode changes could determine this.

I filed a feedback, FB13660312, as I ran again into this issue when creating my Swift Student Challenge project - this time in a different scenario, but the issue is the same. I'd say it follows the same simplified example as before, except the value was used differently inside the sheet (it was passed to an UIViewRepresentable which used it - no if statements were directly used inside the sheet's trailing closure). I'm curios to hear what others think, do you think this is a valid race condition bug?