Same logs when opening the share sheet on iOS 17.

Many thanks for your reply. I indeed ended up with the two changes: For HTTP 1.1 requests, I added the "Connection: close" request header For HTTP 2 requests, I implemented the (empirical) detection of such errors and a one-time retry Both changes allow the app to either avoid the issue (1) or seamlessly handle it (2). Unfortunately, it does not help with the related issue (which is fortunately far less systematic) as the requests fail several (tens of) seconds after the dataTask is sent, time during which the user waits for his action to be performed or information to be displayed. But maybe this related issue is not as related as I think...

Apple documentation indicates that it is supported (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/mediaplayer/handling_external_player_events_notifications) but I haven not found any sample code nor been able to make it work my self. My goal is to allow the user to control the GoogleCast playback from the CommandCenter.

Turns out the Xcode "Validate App" action does not provide an explicit error whereas the "Distribute App" action does. And I've been able to fix my issue: the TV Top Shelf executable name in its Info.plist did not match the bundle folder name.

Issue reported to Apple with the Feedback Assistant: FB9650519.

Thanks azhukov for your response. To give a bit of context, the content displayed by our app is mostly defined by the data the app receives from our backend (including the content hierarchy). It does not know beforehand which kinds of cells it will be asked to display. Most of the screens are base on the very same UIViewController (embedding a collectionView) which is highly configurable and controlled by the server data. For now we use 8 different cells types but it regularly increases as we include more various types of content, hence ways to present it. Our cells registrations lazy instantiation are global and are done once and for all; these instantiations are not local to a UIViewController (in the viewDidLoad() as you assumed). Moreover, the collectionView data describes the cells to use for each section and it makes no sense to parse the data before building the data source in order to force the lazy instantiation of cells registration that will be used. Finally, the cell registrations being only necessary in the UICollectionViewDiffableDataSource cell provider block, it seems absurd to instantiate all cell registrations beforehand whereas only some of them may be used during the app lifetime.      // sections cells registration     dataSource = UICollectionViewDiffableDataSource<Section, SectionItem>(collectionView: collectionView) { collectionView, indexPath, item in       let cellRegistration = item.section.widgetConfig.tileConfig.type.cellRegistration // lazily instantiated       return collectionView.dequeueConfiguredReusableCell(using: cellRegistration, for: indexPath, item: item)     } Instantiating objects once and for all and only when required to is definitely a good practice, just as are Swift class properties. And forbidding cell registrations instantiation inside a diffableDataSource cell provider block seems to me a false good idea introduced in iOS/tvOS 15.

Have you found any solution, workaround or fix for this issue? I'm having the same issue and I've not found any way to make it work, making the whole solution useless! Please Apple engineers, could you please let us know how to set the initial selected index when dealing with a TVCollectionViewFullScreenLayout? Thanks.

I ended up cleaning the entire Xcode "iOS DeviceSupport" folder as it proved to be useful in the past and I cannot reproduce the issue anymore! However, the other developer in my team has the same issue so it's not specific to my computer. I guess we will never know what was going on.

Hi eskimo, Yes, 2.0 is the expected result. Here is my detailed configuration: • MacBook Pro 2020, Intel processor • MacOS 11.4 (but reproduced yesterday with 11.3.x) • Xcode 12.5 • Simulators: iPhone 8 (14.5), iPhone 8 (12.4), iPhone 8 Plus (14.5), iPhone 12 Pro Max I always get the following result: (lldb) po (398.0 / 165.0).rounded()e-321 You don't even have to set a breakpoint to get an unexpected result (though different) as the instruction print("Rounded result: \((398.0 / 165.0).rounded())") logs Rounded result: 2.412121212121212 FYI I've filled in a bug report (FB9118612).

I'm having the same issue with consumable products in Sandbox environment (https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/678105). The first purchase for a given product goes well but any subsequent purchase for this product will end up by the system restoring the first transaction instead of creating a new one. In the end, the purchase fails as our backend refuses to validate the receipt (the transaction identifier being already validated once). I made sure all transactions in purchased or restored states are properly finished (the removedTransactions callback being called each time), although the call to finishTransaction may be asynchronous (after our backend (in)validates the receipt). However, each time the app starts or goes to foreground again, the first successful finished transaction keeps on appearing in the SKPaymentQueue as if it had not been finished. Finishing this transaction right away does not change anything. One sentence worries me in the SKPaymentQueue finishTransaction documentation page : In rare circumstances, this call might fail, and you'll receive updates for that transaction again. It looks like we are experiencing this situation but we have no way to check if the call to finishTransaction failed nor why did it fail. Moreover, there's apparently no way to work around this issue and allow subsequent purchases (for the same product). Also I'm pretty sure I was not experiencing this issue last week (using the same app distributed via Testflight). I don't know if it's an issue with the Sandbox environment or with the Storekit libs and I cannot test the production environment yet. But I'm not confident at all releasing our first support of in-app purchases. Aurélien.

This popup is most certainly displayed because you are using a sandbox account for which Interrupt Purchases for This Tester is selected on AppStoreConnect. To get rid of this popup, unselect this option. Hope it helps, Aurélien.

I experienced the very same issue and figured out that you have to unselect Interrupt Purchases for This Tester on AppStoreConnect right before agreeing the fake general conditions update modal. If you do so, the new transaction is created as described in Apple documentation. I consider it a bug but if it's not, Apple should mention it as an intermediate step between steps 8. and 9. of the Interrupted Purchase test scenario. Hope it helps, Aurélien.

The underlying error of the transaction error allows you to identify this specific use-case. if let error = transaction.error as? NSError, let underlyingError = error.userInfo["NSUnderlyingError"] as? NSError, underlyingError.code == 3038 { // General conditions have changed, don't display an error for the interrupted transaction } I cannot find any documentation regarding the underlying error domain (ASDServerErrorDomain) but I've not found any other way to discriminate this error. Hope it helps, Aurélien.

First I create the URLRequest object with a cachePolicy (usually .useProtocolCachePolicy).      var urlRequest = URLRequest(url: url, cachePolicy: cachePolicy, timeoutInterval: timeoutInterval) Then I retrieve the cachedResponse from URLCache as follows:      let cachedResponse = URLCache.shared.cachedResponse(for: urlRequest) Here, cachedResponse(for:) always returns a new object (different pointer) if called several times with the same URLRequest. And it's the same for the HTTPURLResponse that I get as follows:      let cachedHTTPURLResponse = cachedResponse?.response Finally I create and resume the URLSessionDataTask, assuming the response will cached in URLCache (if the cache policy allows it).      let dataTask = urlSession.dataTask(with: urlRequest) { ... }      dataTask.resume()

Thanks Matt for your support, this is exactly what I was looking for. Side question: sometimes there are two transactions (the first one hitting the cache, the second one the network). I assume the first transaction finds out that the cached response is stale, hence the second transaction. If I'm correct, is there any property describing the cache transaction result? Thanks again, Aurélien.