Conflict between capability User Assigned Device Name & Contacts notes entitlements

We have requested an additional capability called "User Assigned Device Name" for my application to Apple and got approved the same on for debug/adhoc/release environments . Since then we are facing issues on code signing. We are always getting the compiler error "* Provisioning profile "xxxxxxxxxxx" doesn't support the User Assigned Device Name capability." on both Debug and Release environment.

There is another capability "contacts notes entitlements" that we got approved long back when it was not apart of Apple ID(additional capabilities) rather we got approved as a part of our provisioning profile.

Suppose we removed "contacts notes entitlements" from the profile and deleted it from the entitlement folder the project compiled without any error. So we are strongly believes the conflicts on the "contacts notes entitlements" is the root cause.

We are about to release the version and which is blocked due to this error. So kindly look in to this issue and do the needful asap.

STEPS TO REPRODUCE Added user assigned device name capability from Signing & Capability Tab in project in settings.

Added the team, valid provisioning profiles and try to sign in manually.

Getting the error “Provisioning profile xxxxxxxxxxxx" doesn't support the User Assigned Device Name capability." Note: Already got approval for the “user assigned device name” . Which is listed under the app id.

Answered by DTS Engineer in 792655022
Can you please collect the information from the existing request (Case-ID: 7747625)?

Yep, that works for me!

Looking at your team I see that you have both User Assigned Device Name and Contacts Notes Field Access set up as additional capabilities. That’s good, because it means you’re using the new process for both. So, we can ignore the old process stuff. Sorry about that distraction.

One important thing to note here is that both of these additional capabilities have App ID restrictions. That is, you can only use them for specific App IDs:

  • User Assigned Device Name is limited to:

    • 5_________.c__.p_________.i_________________
    • L_________.c__.p_________.i______.i______
    • 2_________.c__.i_____.i________
  • Contacts Notes Field Access is limited to:

    • J_________.c__.i_____.i________
    • 2_________.c__.i_____.i________

Note I’ve redacted all but the first letter of the each App ID element to avoid revealing too much info. I’ve kept the length of the element the same, which should let you work out which is which.

The only App ID that has both additional capabilities is 2_________.c__.i_____.i________. That gels with your earlier statement that “the difference is 360 having both of these capabilities as a part of the App ID (New Process).”

My takeaway from this is that:

  • The old process stuff is now defunct and you should just ignore it.

  • If you need to use Contacts Notes Field Access for an App ID other than the ones listed above — based on your DTS case I think the App ID in question is J_________.c__.p_________.i_________________ — you’ll have to apply for your access to be extended.

Share and Enjoy

Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple
let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

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

OK, let me start by reiterating a point I made earlier: Based on my conversation with the DTSer who supports this feature, Contacts Notes Field Access has transitioned from the old process to the new process. That means the old process is no longer relevant and you should ignore it.

With regards App ID 5_________.c__.p_________.i_________________, it’s in the allowlist for User Assigned Device Name but not for Contacts Notes Field Access. You won’t be able to use the latter for that App ID. If you need to do so, you will have to get back in touch with the folks who manage that capability and ask them to add that App ID to your team’s allowlist.

Share and Enjoy

Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple
let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

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,

Could you please assist us in approving the Contact Notes capability under our AppId?

No. I’m not involved in the approval process for this capability. I recommend that you follow the path that you previously followed.

Share and Enjoy

Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple
let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

Hi Team,

As previously mentioned, we reported the issue under Case ID: 7747625, and as part of the resolution, the Contact Notes entitlement was incorporated into the App ID.

However, we then encountered an issue with the App ID prefix, which changed unexpectedly. While we've seen some progress such as the app update functioning with the new prefix.

We’re still facing a critical issue with keychain access. Currently, keychain data is completely inaccessible, which is preventing seamless usage of the application. It seems that the prefix has successfully transitioned to the Team ID, but the stored data is no longer accessible through the new keychain access group, which is tied to the new App ID prefix.

Additionally, we’ve observed that while the prefix has been updated for the main app target, the extension targets are still using the old prefix (5________A), and keychain access within those extensions remains non-functional.

These blockers have had a severe impact, delaying our app release by three months, and we are struggling to address these issues and provide a smooth experience for our users.

Thanks & Regards

Conflict between capability User Assigned Device Name & Contacts notes entitlements
 
 
Q