Category Archives: Xcode

Playground Graphs

I was playing around with the Swift standard library’s “map” function, when I noticed a cool feature of Xcode Playgrounds. Suppose you are working with an array of numbers. In the Xcode Playgrounds “results” section, you can either click the Quick Look “eye” icon, or click the little results rectangle to get an inline results view of the expression you’re viewing:

Screenshot of Xcode Playgrounds's inline results view, revealing the values of an array of numb ers.

The linear list of values is revelatory and easy to read, but wouldn’t it be easier to understand as a graph? It turns out simply passing these values through the map function does just that:

Screenshot of the Xcode Playgrounds's result of the map function when returning numeric values.

I thought I had stumbled on some magical secret of Xcode, but it turns out the behavior is well documented, and applies to more than just the “map” function. You can even grab the edges of the result view and resize it to better suit your data. In fact, any looping numeric value seems to trigger the availability of this handy graphing functionality:

Screenshot of Xcode Playgrounds showing a graph of the results of Fibonacci sequence.

I am still frustrated by a lot of behaviors of Xcode Playgrounds, but little gems like these are nice to stumble upon.

Unified Swift Playgrounds

The announcement of Swift Playgrounds 2.0 has me thinking again about Xcode Playgrounds: both about what a revelation they are, and about how disappointing they continue to be.

When Xcode Playgrounds were first introduced (as “Swift Playgrounds”) in 2014, they were received as a groundbreaking new way for developers to write Swift code interactively. There were lots of rough edges on the feature, but it seemed reasonable to expect that because they were released in tandem with the Swift programming language itself, those rough edges would be smoothed out on a parallel pace with the language itself.

Two years later, Apple announced Swift Playgrounds again, immediately introducing a nomenclature confusion. This time the name referred to a dedicated, closed-source iOS app designed for interactively teaching programming concepts with Swift. The previous Xcode-coupled technology, now known as “Xcode Playgrounds” or simply “Playgrounds,” had seen modest improvements over the years but continued to be frustratingly slow, unpredictable, and crash-prone.

Today, in early 2018, the release of Swift Playgrounds 2.0 for iOS appears to represent Apple’s commitment to driving that product forward into the future. The latest version of Xcode Playgrounds, on the other hand, offers a lackluster interface, slow responsiveness, and a tendency to crash both within the Playground, and in ways that take down the entire Xcode app. In short: they’re not a very fun place to play.

I propose that Apple eliminate Xcode playgrounds, and invest all of their work in the field of interactive coding into the Swift Playgrounds app. It has been a nagging shortcoming that Swift Playgrounds is only available for iOS. Many people who would benefit from the educational opportunities of Swift Playgrounds could do so from Macs, whether in schools, homes, or workplaces. Porting Swift Playgrounds to the Mac would address that problem.

Where does that leave developers? After eliminating Xcode Playgrounds as we know them today, I envision adapting the Mac version of Swift Playgrounds so that playgrounds can be run either independently in a Swift Playgrounds app, or in “developer mode” within Xcode. In effect, Xcode would become a dedicated Swift Playgrounds authoring app, where such authoring capabilities would incidentally provide all the benefits that standalone Xcode Playgrounds currently provide.

Taking this course would allow Apple to maximize the output of its engineering and design efforts while eliminating the naming confusion that currently exists between Swift Playgrounds and Xcode Playgrounds.

For students and educators, it would broaden device requirements for Swift Playground materials, opening up learning opportunities for people who have access to Macs but not to iOS devices.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for the developer ecosystem as a whole, it would eliminate the frustratingly problematic Xcode Playgrounds and hopefully provide developers with something more inspiring, more functional, and more reliable.

Radar #36910249.

Treat Warnings as Errors in Swift

For years I have maintained a zero-tolerance policy for warnings in shipping code. To help me enforce this, my “Release” build configurations define the build setting that induces Xcode to “treat warnings as errors”:

GCC_TREAT_WARNINGS_AS_ERRORS = YES

The comedy of this build setting is that it references “GCC,” a compiler that increasingly few of us even remember Apple ever using for macOS or iOS development. Apple’s fork of the popular open-source compiler was the standard for years, until Apple debuted clang, which is built on the LLVM framework.

It’s always been kind of annoying that, as time moved on, we were stuck specifying important build settings with names that included “GCC,” but I accepted it. After all, I configure the vast majority of these settings in “.xcconfig” files that I reuse in all my projects, so I almost never interact with them directly.

As I’ve started to shift some of my code from Objective-C to Swift, I assumed that my ancient GCC build setting would ensure that I don’t ship any builds with warnings. But today I realized that I had built a release build that didn’t treat a warning as an error. What’s the deal?

It looks like Apple has decided to break with tradition and establish a new build setting for Swift:

SWIFT_TREAT_WARNINGS_AS_ERRORS = YES

Adding this to my .xcconfig file breaks the build when a warning is generated, and prevents me from accidentally shipping code that is known to be vulnerable to unexpected behavior. I think it would have been a nice touch if Apple had inferred SWIFT_TREAT_WARNINGS_AS_ERRORS when GCC_TREAT_WARNINGS_AS_ERRORS is set, so I’ve filed a bug requesting that it does. Radar #35352318.

Xcode 9 Signing Workarounds

I wrote on Monday about issues with Xcode 9 relating to code signing. Although the gist of that post involved sandboxed Mac applications that launch sandboxed child processes, the fundamental issue is a bit broader: Xcode 9 adds a “com.apple.security.get-task-allow” entitlement to any binary it signs. For the majority of developers, this is probably not an issue, because the entitlement is removed when an Xcode archive is exported for distribution. Most developers, and particularly iOS developers, use Xcode archives.

For folks who don’t, side effects of this additional entitlement include, but may not be limited to:

  1. Inability to launch sandboxed child processes.
  2. Rejection from the Mac App Store.
  3. Unknown consequences of shipping with an unintended entitlement.

So, if you’re a developer who doesn’t use archives, what are your options? I’ve come up with four workarounds, and I present them here, roughly sorted by advisability and level of tedium:

  1. Use Xcode 8. The simplest solution is to not upgrade to Xcode 9 unless and until you need to. Xcode 8’s signing process does not impose the unintended entitlement, so there is no risk of shipping a product that has it, unless you add it yourself. The downside to sticking with Xcode 8 is you won’t enjoy any of the new features of Xcode 9, you’ll have to work to support either Swift 4, macOS 10.13, or iOS 11 SDK features in your app.

  2. Manually re-sign the built-product. Code signing is code signing, and you’re free to sign anything you like to suit your needs, using the “codesign” command line tool. It frankly sounds like a pain in the neck to recursively re-sign every binary in the app bundle, ensuring that the suitable entitlements (minus the unwanted one) are preserved, but I’m sure it can be done.

  3. Use Xcode archives. It strikes me as a little obnoxious to have to use Xcode archives when they don’t offer any added benefits for my dibstrution workflow. But as a long term solution, this is probably the safest bet. The new behavior in Xcode 9 strongly suggests that Apple expects most developers to use archives, and joining the crowd is usually a good idea when it comes to avoiding trouble with Apple’s developer tools.

    If you are using Xcode archives for the first time, particularly with a complex project, you might discover that the resulting archives are not suitable for exporting a signed application. If you get a “Generic Xcode Archive” after running Build -> Archive, you know you’ve got a problem. By default the archive process builds all targets with an “install” option, rendering their built products into a file hierarchy that will be used to build the archive. If your project includes helper apps, for example, they will be “installed” alongside your main app, resulting in a generic archive of two apps, instead of the expected archive of a single app.

    The solution for this problem is to ensure that the “SKIP_INSTALL” build setting is set to YES for any such helper app. Just archive your main app, export the “Built Products” from the resulting archive, and look at the file hierarchy to determine whether you have subtargets that need to have installation disabled.

  4. Hack Xcode 9. In a hurry to ship an update to your app, and you’ve only got Xcode 9 handy? It turns out the imposition of this “com.apple.security.get-task-allow” entitlement is controlled by a single property list file inside Xcode’s application bundle. As a test, I edited the file:

    Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/Library/Xcode/PrivatePlugIns/IDEOSXSupportCore.ideplugin/Contents/Resources/BaseEntitlements.plist
    

    It contains a single entitlement, the one that’s causing our grief. I deleted the entitlement from the list, saved the file, and relaunched Xcode. After doing so, everything is “back to normal.”

    I can’t strongly encourage you to hack your copy of Xcode because I don’t know what the consequences might be. “It seems fine,” but you’re on your own if you decide to do this.

This small change in Xcode 9 causes a lot of unexpected grief for folks who don’t use Xcode archives. I am curious to know how widespread the problem is, and enthusiastic to get the word out about it so that affected folks can work around the problem, or at least be aware of it. Myself, I’ll probably end up adopting the workaround of using Xcode archives, but I’m hopeful that Apple will see the merit of providing an option in an update to Xcode 9 that supports disabling the addition of this entitlement without archiving and exporting a built product.

Sandbox Inheritance Tax

I ran into a subtle bug with Xcode 9 that I think is worth sharing. Specifically, this bug affects Mac applications that:

  1. Are sandboxed.
  2. Launch a sandboxed subprocess with NSTask (or posix_spawn).
  3. Configure the subprocess to inherit the parent’s sandbox.

When such an app is compiled with Xcode 9, the subprocess will crash whenever the parent process launches it. A canonical example of something that might suffer from this problem is a bundled crash-monitor. I embed one with my apps to keep an eye on the running status of the parent process, and to present a crash-reporting interface to users if the host app terminates prematurely. When I build and run my app with Xcode 9, the bundled crash monitor dies instantly upon being launched.

It took me a while to realize that the subprocess is dying because it fails to satisfy the contract for inheriting a sandbox. From Apple’s “Enabling App Sandbox Inheritance“:

To enable sandbox inheritance, a child target must use exactly two App Sandbox entitlement keys: com.apple.security.app-sandbox and com.apple.security.inherit. If you specify any other App Sandbox entitlement, the system aborts the child process.

Well, that’s funny because my child process does specify only those two keys, but the system is aborting it anyway. It turns out that Xcode 9 is inserting a third entitlement without my permission. Clicking on the detail of the “Process Product Packaging” build phase in Xcode’s log navigator, I can see that there are three entitlements for my target:

Xcode build log detail showing the wrong entitlements.

When my subprocess is launched, the system sees that extra “com.apple.security.get-task-allow” entitlement in the context of “com.apple.security.inherit”, and unceremoniously crashes my the child process.

I’m not sure what Apple’s reasoning is for imposing this entitlement on sandboxed targets, but it appears to be doing so across the board, for literally every sandboxed target in my app. I confirmed that all of my apps, XPC processes, helper tools, etc., are all getting this bonus entitlement.

I searched Xcode’s files, and discovered the entitlement listed in this file inside the Xcode app bundle:

Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/Library/Xcode/PrivatePlugIns/IDEOSXSupportCore.ideplugin/Contents/Resources/BaseEntitlements.plist

Putting aside the question of whether it’s appropriate for Xcode to surreptitiously add entitlements that are not specified by the developer’s own list of permissions, the addition of the entitlement for these particular targets, ones that inherit their parent’s sandbox, turns out to be a fatal move.

Ideally I would be able to work around this by adding a custom build phase to manually tweak the generated entitlements file, removing the unwanted key. But the “Process Product Packaging” build phase happens so late in the build process that it’s after the last user-specified custom build phase. There’s no room in Xcode’s current design for fixing up the problematic entitlements before they are incorporated into the signed product. As far as I can tell the only clean workaround would be to redundantly re-sign the child app with a custom script, and corrected entitlements, after Xcode’s build process is completed.

I filed Radar #34628449, “Sandboxed project build with Xcode 9 cannot launch child process.”

Update: Colin Barrett pointed out on Twitter that the entitlement in question here, “com.apple.security.get-task-allow”, may be required in order to attach to and debug a process. If true, then I think this is something that was handled in a different way in Xcode 8. I can confirm that my apps do not have the entitlement imposed on them by Xcode 8, yet I am able to attach to and debug them.

If Apple changed the debugger infrastructure in Xcode 9 so that the relationship between the debugger and target processes is more locked down, requiring a specific entitlement, then that’s probably a good thing. But if this change was made without thinking about the implications for the above-cited “strict two entitlement” rule for sandbox inheritance, then probably some flexibility needs to be applied to that rule.

Finally, as I noted above the entitlement is being applied to all my targets. What I didn’t clarify is that the entitlement is added even when Building and Archiving. A release build’s binaries are endowed with this additional entitlement, which may also bring additional security vulnerabilities to the app.

I would not ship a sandboxed Mac app that is built with Xcode 9, until we understand more about when Xcode applies this entitlement, and whether it can be prevented for Release builds at the very least.

Update 2: I’ve learned that Xcode’s “Export Archive” functionality causes the unwanted entitlement to be removed. Apparently the assumption is that everybody creates Xcode archives as part of their build and release process. I am sure this is true for most (all?) iOS deployments, but for Developer-ID signed apps on the Mac, there has traditionally been less of an incentive to do this. Got a properly signed Mac application? Zip it up, put it on a web server, and you’re done.

I’m not sure yet whether I’ll switch my build process to use archiving, or whether I’ll pull some other stunt to redo the code signing with corrected entitlements. In any case this has been quite an adventure today getting to the bottom of this. I updated my bug report with Apple to request that they provide some standard build flag that would prevent the problematic entitlement from being added from the start. In the mean time, I’ll explore one of the workarounds and get my builds back to fully functional!

Better Swift Completion

Apple released Xcode 9 earlier this week, and in spite of a few glitches here and there, I have found the update to be an overall improvement over Xcode 8. It’s nice that Apple continues to invest in the core tools for Mac and iOS developers.

I’ve been dabbling in more and more Swift development lately, and it’s brought to light a shortcoming in Xcode’s code completion which has unfortunately not improved in Xcode 9: completion of Swift function calls when there is a large quantity of candidates.

Take for example NSAttributedString. If I want to initialize a new instance in Swift, I type “NSAttributedString(” to bring up the list of compatible init methods I can choose from:

SwiftCompletion

The problem at this point is that I have to navigate the menu by hand. I can’t narrow down the list of completions any further by typing, because the very next character I type will be interpreted as the manual filling out of parameters of the NSAttributedString initializer.

BadCompletion

This is a situation where Objective-C gets much nicer treatment in the editor. Because completion in Objective-C begins when I start typing “init”, and because the named first parameter is part of the init message name, I can winnow down the results quite a bit:

Pasted Image 9 22 17 11 24 AM

Better still, because Xcode performs a fuzzy match on the typing, I can proceed to type the names of additional parameters to zero in completely on the variation I want:

MEAppController AppDelegate m Edited

When I accept the completion, all of my typing is replaced with the expected, templated parameter placeholders for the chose initializer.

I filed Radar #34594940 requesting better completion for Swift.

Xcode GitHub Integration

Apple’s beta release of Xcode 9 features impressive improvements to its source control features, including streamlined integration with GitHub. There’s even a fancy “Open in Xcode” button when you go to clone a project:

Screen capture of the GitHub interface for cloning a project

This integration is amazing. You just click the button, specify a save folder in Xcode, and boom! You’re off and …

Screen capture of build failure indicating a missing signing certificate

Oh, right. Code signing. The otherwise stellar GitHub integration in Xcode underscores a longstanding deficiency in how it manages code signing identities for multi-team, collaborative projects. Precisely the kinds of projects you’re liable to find on GitHub.

The problem could be solved, or at least diminished greatly, by providing some mechanism for declaring that a project should be code signed “with the user’s own default developer team.” The default branch of any open source project targeting Apple platforms, would specify the DEVELOPMENT_TEAM as something like:

DEVELOPMENT_TEAM = Automatic

Xcode would provide a user-level setting for “Default Development Team”, and in the absence of any overriding setting, that team would be used whenever a project was configured as above.

I wrote about this problem once before, but with all the work being put into streamlining the experience of cloning from and pushing to GitHub, now is an ideal time for Apple to embrace a fix. Radar #32614751.

Another issue that stops short the cloning, and immediate building and running, of open source projects, is the need to fulfill external dependencies. In some cases this might require manually downloading and installing libraries, or cloning projects, but in the vast majority of cases the dependencies will be specified using built-in Git submodule support, or a popular package manager. In each of these cases, it should be trivial for Xcode to detect that the project it has just cloned also has dependencies:

  • Git submodules: there is a .gitmodules directory.
  • Carthage: there is a Cartfile file.
  • CocoaPods: there is a Podfile file.
  • Swift Package Manager: there is a Swift.package file.

If Xcode sees evidence of any of these techniques at play, it could do the favor of checking them out immediately after cloning the project. Radar #32615265.

The GitHub integration coming in Xcode 9 provides a nearly effortless capability for cloning, building, and running open source projects that target Apple platforms. Ideally it would also go the extra mile and provide for variable, dynamic development teams, as well as conduct a rudimentary check for dependencies that must be checked out before commencing work on the project.

Debugging Swift: Error in Auto-Import

Have you ever tried debugging Swift code in an embedded framework, and met resistance from lldb in the form of a cryptic AST context error?

error: in auto-import:
failed to get module 'RSAppKit' from AST context:

<module-includes>:1:9: note: in file included from <module-includes>:1:
#import "Headers/RSAppKit.h"
        ^
error: [...]/RSAppKit.h:1:9: error: 'RSAppKit/SomeHeader.h' file not found
#import <RSAppKit/SomeHeader.h>
        ^

error: could not build Objective-C module 'RSAppKit'

After hours of trying to unravel this mystery, I discovered the root cause: the framework that is embedded in my app does not, in fact, contain any headers. They were stripped by Xcode when it copied the framework into the app.

In my opinion, Xcode and/or lldb should be smart enough to handle this situation, by preferring the version of the framework in the “Built Products” directory, which still has its header files in-tact. Radar #31502879 requests this, hopefully Apple will fix it.

In the mean time, you can work around the problem by setting the REMOVE_HEADERS_FROM_EMBEDDED_BUNDLES build setting to NO in the app that embeds the framework:

Xcode build settings showing REMOVE_HEADERS_FROM_EMBEDDED_BUNDLES set to NO for DEBUG builds.

You probably want to make sure it remains set to YES for Release builds, so that you don’t ship your framework’s header files to your customers.

System Level Breakpoints in Swift

Any great software developer must inevitably become a great software debugger. Debugging consists largely of setting breakpoints, then landing on them to examine the state of an app at arbitrary points during its execution. There are roughly two kinds of breakpoints: those you set on your own code, and those you set on other people’s code.

Setting a breakpoint on your own code is simple. Just find the line of source code in your Xcode project, and tap the area in the gutter next to the pertinent line:

MotoAppSwift

But what if you need to set a breakpoint on a system API, or a method implemented in a drop-in library for which you don’t have source code? For example, imagine you are hunting down a layout bug and decide it might be helpful to observe any calls to Apple’s own internal layoutSubviews method on UIView. Historically, to an Objective-C programmer, this is not a huge challenge. We know the form for expressing such a method symbolically and to break on it, we just drop into Xcode’s lldb console (View -> Debug Area -> Activate Console), and set a breakpoint manually by specifying its name. The “b” shorthand command in lldb does a bit of magic regex matching to expand what we type to its full, matching name:

(lldb) b -[UIView layoutSubviews]
Breakpoint 3: where = UIKit`-[UIView(Hierarchy) layoutSubviews], address = 0x000000010c02f642
(lldb) 

If you’re intimidated by the lldb console, or you want the breakpoint to stick around longer than the current debug session, you can use Xcode’s own built-in symbolic breakpoint interface (Debug -> Breakpoints -> Create Symbolic Breakpoint) to achieve the same thing:

Image of Xcode's symbolic breakpoint editor

In fact, if you add this breakpoint to your iOS project and run your app, I am pretty sure you will run into a breakpoint on Apple’s layoutSubviews method. Pop back into the lldb console and examine the object that is being sent the message:

(lldb) po $arg1
<UIClassicWindow: 0x7f8e7dd06660; frame = (0 0; 414 736); userInteractionEnabled = NO; gestureRecognizers = <NSArray: 0x60000004b7c0>; layer = <UIWindowLayer: 0x600000024260>>

Now, continue and break on the symbol again. And again. Examine the target each time by typing “po $arg1” into the lldb console. You can imagine how handy it might be to perform this kind of analysis while tracking down a tricky bug.

But what about the poor Swift programmers who have come to our platforms, bright-eyed and full of enthusiasm for Swift syntax? They who have read Apple’s documentation, and for whom “-[UIView layoutSubviews]” is impossible to parse, whereas “UIView.layoutSubviews” not only looks downright obvious, but is correct for Swift?

Unfortunately, setting a breakpoint on “UIView.layoutSubviews” simply doesn’t work:

(lldb) b UIView.layoutSubviews
Breakpoint 3: no locations (pending).
WARNING:  Unable to resolve breakpoint to any actual locations.
(lldb) 

This fails because there is no Swift type named UIView implementing a method called layoutSubviews. It’s implemented entirely in Objective-C. In fact, a huge number of Objective-C methods that are exposed to Swift get compiled down to direct Objective-C message sends. If you type something like “UIView().layoutIfNeeded()” into a Swift file, and compile it, no Swift method call to layoutIfNeeded ever occurs.

This isn’t the case for all Cocoa types that are mapped into Swift. For example, imagine you wanted to break on all calls to “Data.write(to:options:)”. You might try to set a breakpoint on “Data.write” in the hopes that it works:

(lldb) b Data.write
Breakpoint 11: where = libswiftFoundation.dylib`Foundation.Data.write (to : Foundation.URL, options : __ObjC.NSData.WritingOptions) throws -> (), address = 0x00000001044edf10

And it does! How about that? Only it doesn’t, really. This will break on all calls that pass through libswiftFoundation on their way to -[NSData writeToURL:options:error:], but it won’t catch anything that calls the Objective-C implementation directly. To catch all calls to the underlying method, you need to set the breakpoint on the lower level, Objective-C method.

So, as a rule, Swift programmers who want to be advanced debuggers on iOS or Mac platforms, also need to develop an ability for mapping Swift method names back to their Objective-C equivalents. For a method like UIView.layoutSubviews, it’s a pretty direct mapping back to “-[UIView layoutSubviews]”, but for many methods it’s nowhere near as simple.

To map a Swift-mapped method name back to Objective-C, you have to appreciate that many Foundation classes are stripped of their “NS” prefix, and the effects of rewriting method signatures to accommodate Swift’s API guidelines. For example, a naive Swift programmer may not easily guess that in order to set a breakpoint on the low-level implementation for “Data.write(to:options)”, you need to add back the “NS” prefix, explicitly describe the URL parameter, and add a mysterious error parameter, which is apparently how cranky greybeards used to propagate failures in the bad old days:

(lldb) b -[NSData writeToURL:options:error:]
Breakpoint 13: where = Foundation`-[NSData(NSData) writeToURL:options:error:], address = 0x00000001018328c3

Success!

For those of you mourn the thought of having to develop this extensive knowledge of Objective-C message signatures and API conventions, I offer a little hack that will likely get you through your next challenge. If the API has been rewritten using one of these rules, it’s almost certain that the Swift name of the function is a subset of the ObjC method name. You can probably leverage the regex matching ability of lldb to zero in on the method you want to set a breakpoint on:

(lldb) break set -r Data.*write
Breakpoint 14: 107 locations.

Now type “break list” and see the massive number of likely matches lldb has presented at your feet. Among them are a number of Swift cover methods that are part of libswiftFoundation, but you’ll also find the target method in question. In fact, you’ll also see a few other low-level Objective-C methods that you may want to break on as well.

To make the list more manageable, given your knowledge that the target methods are in a given Objective-C framework, add the “-s” flag to limit matches to a specific shared library by name:

(lldb) break set -s Foundation -r Data.*write
Breakpoint 17: 8 locations.

Among these breakpoints there are a few false hits on the NSPageData class, but the list is altogether more manageable. The single breakpoint “17” has all of its matches identified by sub-numbers. Prune the list of any breakpoints that get in your way, and you’re good to go:

(lldb) break disable 17.6 17.7 17.8
3 breakpoints disabled.
(lldb) c

Apple’s mapping of Objective-C API to Swift creates an altogether more enjoyable programming experience for Swift developers, but it can lead to great confusion if you don’t understand some of the implementation details, or how to work around lack of understanding. I hope this article gives you the tools you need to debug your Swift apps, and the Objective-C code that you are unavoidably leveraging, more effectively.

Update: I filed two related bugs: Radar #31115822 requesting automatic mapping from Swift method format back to underlying Objective-C methods, and Radar #31115942 requesting that lldb be more intuitive about evaluating terse Swift method signatures.

Implicit Swift Dependencies

If you’re developing in Swift for Mac or iOS, you need to ensure that any standard Swift libraries are also copied into your app bundle. Typically this is handled automatically by Xcode when it detects the presence of any Swift files in your app. If your app is entirely Objective-C, but you link against your own frameworks that themselves depend on Swift, you have to ensure the required libraries are embedded. This can be done by setting the “Always Embed Swift Standard Libraries” checkbox in your target’s build settings to “Yes”:

AlwaysEmbed

When this option is set, Xcode scans the bundled frameworks in your app and, if any of them contains Swift code, it copies the pertinent libraries into your app’s bundle.

This approach falls down a bit when it comes to Unit Testing targets. Because a Unit Test bundle doesn’t typically copy the framework it is testing into its own bundle, Xcode seems to deduce dependencies by examining the list of frameworks the test bundle links to. If you enable the “Always Embed” option above for a Unit Testing bundle, then any framework the bundle links against will be examined for Swift code, and the required libraries copied in.

But what if none of the linked frameworks themselves require Swift, but they depend upon other frameworks that do? In projects of a substantial size, you may have higher-level frameworks implemented entirely in Objective-C, that depend upon lower level frameworks that use Swift. In this scenario, Xcode’s CopySwiftLibs build phase does not identify the deeper dependency, and neglects to embed the required Swift libraries. When your unit tests run, you’ll see a runtime error like this:

The bundle “RSTextFilteringTests” couldn’t be loaded because it is damaged or missing necessary resources. Try reinstalling the bundle.
(dlopen_preflight([...]/RSTextFilteringTests): Library not loaded: @rpath/libswiftAppKit.dylib
  Referenced from: [...]/RSAppKit.framework/Versions/A/RSAppKit
  Reason: image not found)
Program ended with exit code: 82

So “Always Embed Swift Standard Libraries” doesn’t always embed them. I’ve filed Radar #30832923, requesting that the CopySwiftLibs build phase look harder for Swift dependencies. In my opinion it should look not only at the directly linked frameworks, but at any developer-supplied frameworks that those in turn depend upon. This would cause “Always Embed” to behave as expected when a developer adds Swift dependencies to frameworks at any level of their code base.

There are many possible workarounds to the problem, and each has its own drawbacks. Here are a few:

  1. Add a Swift-based unit test file to your test bundle. This simple workaround will work in most situations, because the test itself will impose many Swift library dependencies on your bundle. There is a shortcoming, though: if the test code doesn’t generate all the Swift dependencies that your frameworks do, you’ll still be left with missing Swift libraries. For example if a dependent library requires the Swift library for Apple’s Contacts.framework, your Swift test file is not sufficient to cue Xcode to copy the required libSwiftContacts library.
  2. Manually link to Swift-dependent frameworks. Suppose your unit tests target HighLevel.framework, and LowLevel.framework depends upon Swift. By adding LowLevel.framework to the list of linked libraries for your testing bundle, you will cue Xcode to also embed the required Swift libraries for that framework. This has the advantage of ensuring that whatever Swift libraries are required get copied, but it has the drawback of requiring explicit dependency on a lower level framework from your unit test bundle.
  3. Stop! Abort mission! Revert to Objective-C only. Many Swift dabblers probably feel this emotion from time to time. The unexpected costs of adding a modest amount of Swift to a project are frustrating, and one can’t help but wonder whether they would be better off waiting until Swift support is more baked in to the system. The obvious downside of this approach is that Apple’s progress with Swift is moving quickly, and the longer you put off testing the waters, the harder it may be for you to catch up when ignoring it is no longer a viable option.

The workaround I’ve settled on for now is #2. Adding unnecessary direct dependencies to my test bundle feels a little inappropriate, but it is both easily undone in the future, and unlikely to cause any real problems in practice.

In the course of investigating this problem, it also occurred to me that unit test bundles in particular are such a special case, that Apple should probably give them special treatment to eliminate a number of pitfalls. I filed Radar #30832983 suggesting that unit test bundles should default to “Always Embed Swift Standard Libraries,” on the assumption that Swift code may be present in some library.

Thinking further on that point, it seems that Unit Tests could be safely run in an environment in which all Swift support libraries are available at runtime to be resolved by DYLD. Because test bundles are not built to be shipped to customers, it’s of primary that they link and run successfully. Such an approach would do away with the need for Unit Test bundles to either specify that Swift libraries be bundled, or to fret about which of those libraries in particular need to be copied.