Post

Replies

Boosts

Views

Activity

Reply to Conflict between capability User Assigned Device Name & Contacts notes entitlements
Hi , It appears that we can no longer proceed with the old process as the additional capability for Contact Notes is no longer functioning(old process ie, added capability to our provisioning profile). In our AppId settings, we cannot find the Contact Notes capability to request its addition (please see the attached screenshot for reference). Previously, we submitted a request and had the Contact Notes capability approved without any direct interaction with an Apple representative. Could you please assist us in approving the Contact Notes capability under our AppId? Thank you for your help. Best regards,
Jul ’24
Reply to Conflict between capability User Assigned Device Name & Contacts notes entitlements
Hi Team, Sure, Please check the redacted App Id of IDrive Online Backup that we are facing the issue below.(Combined old and new process) `5_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.c_ _.p_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ` User Assigned Device Name capability added in to our App ID and then create a provisioning profile based on that. ie, new process. Contacts Notes added additional capability to our provisioning profile** ie, the old process And below is the app id(of IDrive 360) that working perfectly fine with the "User Assigned Device Name" & "Contacts notes Field access' entitlements both completely on new process. 2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.c_ _.i_ _ _ _ _.i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Please check and let us know. Thanks & Regards
Jul ’24
Reply to Conflict between capability User Assigned Device Name & Contacts notes entitlements
Hi Thanks for the above . It seems there is again confusion arises on the statement “the difference is 360 having both of these capabilities as a part of the App ID (New Process).” Actually this IDrive 360 app is entirely a different app and I just mentioned there to specify that with the new process everything is working fine without any issue. But the actual problem is with the "IDrive Online Backup" app as it is following old process for " Contacts notes entitlements" & new process for "User Assigned Device Name" . Could you please have a look. Thank you
Jun ’24
Reply to Conflict between capability User Assigned Device Name & Contacts notes entitlements
Hi Team, As you suggested we have created the provisioning profile for the User Assigned Device Name capability enabled App Id and then applied the Contact Notes template to the profile. Still getting the same error "Provisioning profile "IDriveOnlineBackUp_Dev2" doesn't support the User Assigned Device Name capability."(performing manual code signing) Here Im attaching the screenshots of error, entitlement plist and the build settings User-Defined provisioning profile settings. Please check those let me know if anything missing. Also let me know if there any additional build settings we have to take care on this scenario. We have another application called IDrive 360 which also provides similar services to the customer. 360 application as well we have the above mentioned capabilities ie, "User Assigned Device Name" & "Contacts notes Field access' '. Here the difference is 360 having both of these capabilities as a part of the App ID(New Process). The provisioning profile showing Entitlements as default. We are able to Debug/Achieve the target without any issue. Kindly consider this point. Thanks & Regards
Jun ’24
Reply to Conflict between capability User Assigned Device Name & Contacts notes entitlements
Hi Thank you for the response. Please find the updates below. It sounds like User Assigned Device Name is using the new process. Please confirm? Yes you are right the User Assigned Device Name capability added in to our App ID and then create a provisioning profile based on that. ie, new process. And what about Contacts Notes? ** Contacts Notes added additional capability to our provisioning profile** ie, the old process Thank you.
Jun ’24