General: DevForums subtopic: App & System Services > Processes & Concurrency Processes & concurrency covers a number of different technologies: Background Tasks Resources Concurrency Resources — This includes Swift concurrency. Service Management Resources XPC Resources Share and Enjoy — Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"

The same code built in a regular Mac app (with UI) does get paired. The characteristic properties are [.read, .write, .notify, .notifyEncryptionRequired] The characteristic permissions are [.readEncryptionRequired, .writeEncryptionRequired] My service is primary. In the iOS app (central) I try to read the characteristic, but an error is reported: Error code: 5, Description: Authentication is insufficient.

macOS 26 "Tahoe" is allocating much more memory for apps than former macOS versions: A customer contacted me with my app's Thumbnail extension allocating so much memory that her 48 GB RAM Mac Mini ran into "out of application memory" state. I couldn't identify any memory leak in my extension's code nor reproduce the issue, but found the main app allocating as much as 5 times the memory compared to running on macOS 15 or lower. This productive app is explicitly using "Liquid Glass" views as well as implicitly e.g. for an inspector pane. So I created a sample app, just based on Xcode's template of a document-based app, and the issue is still showing (although less dramatically): This sample app allocates 22 MB according to Tahoe's Activity Monitor, while Sequoia only requires 16 MB: macOS 15.6.1 macOS 26.2 Is anyone experiencing similar issues? I suspect some massive leak in Tahoe's memory management, and just filed a corresponding feedback (FB21967167).

Hi, I've now identified a few areas when BGContinuedProcessingTask gets expired by the system no progress for ~30 seconds high CPU usage high temperature Some of these I can preempt and expire preemptively and handle the notification, others I cannot and just need to let the failure bubble up. When the failure does bubble up, I'd like to update the title and subtitle. I'm able to update the title, but the subtitle is fixed at "Task Failed" Is there any workaround? Or shall I file a bug here?

I’ve built an app that connects via Bluetooth to a device. The device sends up, down, left and right commands. I want to build an SDK for other third party developers to use so that whenever a third party app with the SDK opens, if we press a button on the device, my app which captures the button press should be able to forward the event to the third party app. I want to achieve this with the lowest latency possible so that I can enable a variety of use cases like simple games and interactions within other apps. What would be the best way for me to achieve this as part of my SDK and my app?

This is a successor to: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/814231 I went into a slightly different direction. I generated more AI slop that use NSLock. Then I had the NSLock usage changed to Mutex usage. Now it crashes with: Task 13: EXC_BREAKPOINT (code=1, subcode=0x18d29326c) On one of the mutex closures. With an extended description: warning: TypeSystemSwiftTypeRef::operator(): had to engage SwiftASTContext fallback for type $s7Combine10PublishersO21LineBreakingPublisherE11SplitAtZeroV12Subscription33_D18F5AAE73662968F407B0A79FBD1F8DLLCy_x_qd__GD I put the class, a Subscription nested in its corresponding Publisher operator, in the given file Subscription.txt

Hi, I have been recently debugging the BGContinuedProcessingTask API and encountered some of the following issues. I hope you can provide some answers: First, let me explain my understanding of this API. I believe its purpose is to allow an app to trigger tasks that can be represented with progress indicators and require a certain amount of time to complete. After entering the background, these tasks can continue to be completed through the BGContinuedProcessingTask, preventing the system from terminating them before they are finished. In the launchHandler of the registration process, we only need to do a few things: Determine whether the actual business processing is still ongoing. Update the progress, title, and subtitle. Handle the expirationHandler. Set the task as completed. Here are some issues I encountered during my debugging process: After I called register and submit, the BGContinuedProcessingTask could not be triggered. The return values from my API calls were all normal. I tried different device models, and some could trigger the task normally, such as the 15 Pro Max and 12 Pro Max. However, there were also some models, such as the 17 Pro, 15 Pro, and 15, that could not trigger the task properly. Moreover, there was no additional error information to help locate the issue. The background task failed unexpectedly, but my app was still running normally. As I mentioned above, my launchHandler only retrieves the actual business status and updates it. If a background task fails unexpectedly while the app is still running normally, it can mislead users and degrade the user experience of the app. Others have also mentioned the issue of inconsistent behavior on devices that do not support Dynamic Island. On devices that support Dynamic Island, when a task is triggered in the foreground, the app does not immediately display a pop-up notification within the app. However, on devices that do not support Dynamic Island, the app directly displays a pop-up notification within the app, and this notification does not disappear when switching between different screens within the same app. The user needs to actively swipe up to dismiss it. I think this experience is too intrusive for users. I would like to know whether this will be maintained in the future or if there is a plan to fix it. On devices that do not support Dynamic Island, using the beta version 26.1 of the system, if the system is in dark mode but the app triggers a business interface in white, the pop-up notification will have the same color as the current page, making it difficult to read the content inside the pop-up. Users can actively stop background tasks by using the stop button, or the system can also stop tasks automatically when resources are insufficient or when a task is abnormal. However, according to the current API, all these actions are triggered through the expirationHandler. Currently, there is no way to distinguish whether the task was stopped by the user, by the system due to resource insufficiency, or due to an abnormal task. I would like to know whether there will be more information provided in the future to help distinguish these different scenarios. I believe that the user experience issues mentioned in points 2 and 3 are the most important. Please help to answer the questions and concerns above. Thank you!

Knows anyone a point in systemlog etc. To find out when and why my or other apps are terminated by os. At the moment a lot of apps inclusive my apps seems to be terminated instead set to sleep by OS if no power coord is connected There are no crashlogs recorded, Sentry or firebase don‘t report issues.

Hello, I am currently developing an iOS application using SensorKit. I encountered an issue when attempting to fetch SensorKit data in the background using background tasks (appRefresh, processing). The following error occurs: In the delegate function func sensorReader(_ reader: SRSensorReader, fetching fetchRequest: SRFetchRequest, failedWithError error: any Error) {}, I receive the error: SRErrorDataInaccessible. In code specific manner: start and handle background fetch (appRefresh) func handleAppRefreshTask(task: BGAppRefreshTask) { logger.logWithServer(level: .default, message: "background fetch start", category: String(describing: BackgroundTaskManager.self)) scheduleBackgroundFetch() let queue = OperationQueue() queue.maxConcurrentOperationCount = 1 let fetchOperation = FetchOperation() queue.addOperation(fetchOperation) task.expirationHandler = { self.logger.logWithServer(level: .error, message: "background fetch expirated", category: String(describing: BackgroundTaskManager.self)) queue.cancelAllOperations() } fetchOperation.completionBlock = { task.setTaskCompleted(success: !fetchOperation.isCancelled) } } Background fetch operation class class FetchOperation: Operation { override func main() { guard !isCancelled else { return } Task { // this function will execute fetch request for all user allowed sensorReader, 'func fetch(_ request: SRFetchRequest)' await SensorkitManager.shared.startFetchAndUpload() } } } I have the following questions: Is it possible to fetch SensorKit data in the background? If it is possible, why does the above error occur? If it is possible, could you provide the solution code and the correct workflow to avoid this error? Thank you.

I tried making a concurrency-safe data queue. It was going well, until memory check tests crashed. It's part of an unadvertised git project. Its location is: https://github.com/CTMacUser/SynchronizedQueue/commit/84a476e8f719506cbd4cc6ef513313e4e489cae3 It's the blocked-off method "`memorySafetyReferenceTypes'" in "SynchronizedQueueTests.swift." Note that the file and its tests were originally AI slop.

I am developing a remote support tool for macOS. While we have successfully implemented a Privileged Helper Tool and LaunchDaemon architecture that works within an active Aqua session, we have observed a total failure to capture the screen buffer or receive input at the macOS Login Window. Our observation of competitor software (AnyDesk, TeamViewer) shows they maintain graphical continuity through logout/restart. We are seeking the official architectural path to replicate this system-level access. Current Technical Implementation Architecture: A root-level LaunchDaemon manages the persistent network connection. A PrivilegedHelperTool (installed in /Library/PrivilegedHelperTools/) is used for elevated tasks. Environment: Tested on macOS 14.x (Sonoma) and macOS 15.x (Sequoia) on Apple Silicon. Capture Methods: We have implemented ScreenCaptureKit (SCK) as the primary engine and CGDisplayCreateImage as a fallback. Binary Status: All components are signed with a Developer ID and have been successfully Notarized. Observed Behavior & Blockers The "Aqua" Success: Within a logged-in user session, our CGI correctly identifies Display IDs and initializes the capture stream. Remote control is fully functional. The "Pre-Login" Failure: When the Mac is at the Login Window (no user logged in), the following occurs: The Daemon remains active, but the screen capture buffer returns NULL or an empty frame. ScreenCaptureKit fails to initialize, citing a lack of graphical context. No TCC (Transparency, Consent, and Control) prompt can appear because no user session exists. The "Bootstrap" Observation: We have identified that the loginwindow process exists in a restricted Mach bootstrap namespace that our Daemon (running in the System domain) cannot natively bridge. Comparative Analysis (Competitor Benchmarking) We have analyzed established remote desktop solutions like AnyDesk and Jump Desktop to understand their success at the login screen. Our findings suggest: Dual-Context Execution: They appear to use a Global LaunchAgent with LimitLoadToSessionType = ["LoginWindow"]. This allows a child process to run as root inside the login window’s graphical domain. Specialized Entitlements: These apps have migrated to the com.apple.developer.persistent-content-capture entitlement. This restricted capability allows them to bypass the weekly/monthly TCC re-authorization prompts and function in unattended scenarios where a user cannot click "Allow." Questions Entitlement Requirement: Is the persistent-content-capture entitlement the only supported way for a third-party app to capture the LoginWindow buffer without manual user intervention? LaunchAgent Strategy: To gain a graphical context at the login screen, is it recommended to load a specialized agent into the loginwindow domain via launchctl bootstrap loginwindow ...? ScreenCaptureKit vs. Legacy: Does ScreenCaptureKit officially support the LoginWindow session, or does it require an active Aqua session to initialize? MDM Bypass: For Enterprise environments, can a Privacy Preferences Policy Control (PPPC) payload grant "Screen Recording" to a non-entitled Daemon specifically for the login window context?

I'm specifically focused on Live Activity, but I think this is somewhat a general question. The app could get a few callbacks when: There's a new payload (start, update, end) There's a new token (start, update) There's some other lifecycle event (stale, dismissed) Assuming that the user didn't force kill the app, would the app get launched in all these scenarios? When OS launches the app for a reason, should we wrap our tasks with beginBackgroundTask or that's unnecessary if we're expecting our tasks to finish within 30 seconds? Or the OS may sometimes be under stress and give you far less time (example 3 seconds) and if you're in slow internet, then adding beginBackgroundTask may actually come in handy?

Let's image that someone wants to use a background service to keep track of FSEvents activity, at the file level (a firehose, some might say). I choose this example, to indicate the volume and rate of data transmission in question. I'm not creating a front-end for FSEvents data, but my background service may generate data at a similar pace. The service runs off of user defined document/s that specify the FSEvent background filtering to be applied. Those that match get stored into a database. But filters can match on almost all the data being emitted by FSEvents. The user decides to check on the service's activity and database writes by launching a GUI that sends requests to the background service using XPC. So the GUI can request historic data from a database, but also get a real-time view of what FS events the service is busy filtering. So it's a client-server approach, that's concerned with monitoring an event stream over XPC. I understand XPC is a request/response mechanism, and I might look into using a reverse connection here, but my main concern is one of performance. Is XPC capable of coping with such a high volume of data transmision? Could it cope with 1000s of rows of table data updates per second sent to a GUI frontend? I know there are streaming protocol options that involve a TCP connection, but I really want to stay away from opening sockets.

We are seeing a strange lifecycle issue on multiple MDM-managed iPads where application(_:didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:) is not called after the device is idle overnight. Even if we terminate the app manually via the app switcher, the next morning the system does not perform a cold launch. Instead, the app resumes directly in: applicationDidBecomeActive(_:) This causes all initialization logic that depends on didFinishLaunching to be completely skipped. This behavior is consistent across four different supervised MDM devices. Environment Devices: iPads enrolled in MDM (supervised) iOS version: 18.3 Xcode: 16.4 macOS: Sequoia 15.7.2 App type: Standard UIKit iOS app App: Salux Audiometer (App Store app) Expected Behavior If the app was terminated manually using the app switcher, the next launch should: Start a new process Trigger application(_:didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:) Follow the normal cold-start lifecycle Actual Behavior After leaving the iPad idle overnight (8–12 hours): The next launch skips didFinishLaunching The app resumes directly in applicationDidBecomeActive No new process is started App behaves as if it had been suspended, even though it was manually terminated Logs (Relevant Extracts) Day 1 — Normal cold launch [12:06:44.152 PM] PROCESS_STARTED [12:06:44.214 PM] DID_FINISH_LAUNCHING_START launchOptions=[] [12:06:44.448 PM] DID_FINISH_LAUNCHING_END We then used the app and terminated it via app switcher. Day 2 — Unexpected resume without cold start [12:57:49.328 PM] APP_DID_BECOME_ACTIVE No PROCESS_STARTED No didFinishLaunching No cold-start logs This means the OS resumed the app from a previous state that should not exist. Reproducible Steps Use an MDM-enrolled iPad. Launch the app normally. Terminate it manually via the multitasking app switcher. Leave the device idle overnight (8–12 hours). Launch the app the next morning. Observe that: didFinishLaunching does not fire applicationDidBecomeActive fires directly Questions for Apple Engineers / Community Is this expected behavior on MDM-supervised devices in iOS 18? Are there any known OS-level changes where terminated apps may be revived from disk/memory? Could MDM restrictions or background restoration policies override app termination? How can we ensure that our app always performs a clean initialization when launched after a long idle period? Additional Information We have full logs from four separate MDM iPads showing identical behavior. Happy to share a minimal reproducible sample if required.

I’m reaching out regarding an issue we’ve been experiencing with BGProcessingTask since upgrading to Xcode 26.1.1. Issue Summary Our daily background processing task—scheduled shortly after end‑of‑day—has stopped triggering reliably at night. This behavior started occurring only after updating to Xcode 26.1.1. Prior to this update, the task consistently ran around midnight, executed for ~10–15 seconds, and successfully rescheduled itself for the next day. Expected Behavior BGProcessingTask should run at/near the scheduled earliestBeginDate, which we set to roughly 2 hours after end-of-day. The task should execute, complete, and then reschedule itself. Actual Behavior On devices running builds compiled with Xcode 26.1.1, the task does not trigger at all during the night. The same code worked reliably before the Xcode update. No system logs indicate rejection, expiration, or background task denial. Technical Details This is the identifier we use: private enum DayEndProcessorConst {    static let taskIdentifier = "com.company.sdkmanagement.daysummary.manager" } The task is registered as follows: When app launched BGTaskScheduler.shared.register(    forTaskWithIdentifier: DayEndProcessorConst.taskIdentifier,    using: nil ) { [weak self] task in    self?.handleDayEndTask(task) } And scheduled like this: let date = Calendar.current.endOfDay(for: Date()).addingTimeInterval(60 * 60 * 2) let request = BGProcessingTaskRequest(identifier: DayEndProcessorConst.taskIdentifier) request.requiresNetworkConnectivity = true request.requiresExternalPower = false request.earliestBeginDate = date try BGTaskScheduler.shared.submit(request) As per our logs, tasks scheduled successfully The handler wraps the work in an operation queue, begins a UI background task, and marks completion appropriately: task.setTaskCompleted(success: true) Could you please advise whether: There are known issues with BGProcessingTask scheduling or midnight execution in Xcode 26.1.1 or iOS versions associated with it? Any new entitlement, configuration, or scheduler behavior has changed in recent releases? Additional logging or diagnostics can help pinpoint why the scheduler never fires the task?

I built an iOS app and debugged it using my iPhone 11. It works fine. My app uses Bluetooth because the physical data logger reads data via Bluetooth. I published it to the Apple store. After installing it on the iPhone 13 pro. The app works, but the device is not selected.

Regarding App Update Synchronization During Workout Mode: My watchOS app has workout mode enabled. When I update the app from the App Store on my iPhone while a workout session is active on my Apple Watch, the update does not sync to the watch. Why does this happen, and when can I expect the watch app to be updated? Regarding Automatic App Launch After a Prolonged Shutdown: I would like my watchOS app to launch automatically on my Apple Watch after it has been powered off for an extended period and then turned back on. Is this functionality possible to implement? If not, please provide a definitive answer regarding this capability.

I have an older project that was created before Xcode 26.2. In Xcode versions prior to 26.2, there was no Swift Compiler – Concurrency build setting. With those older versions, the following behavior occurs: a nonisolated function executes off the main thread. class ViewController: UIViewController { override func viewDidLoad() { super.viewDidLoad() run() } private func run() { Task { await runInMainThread() } } func runInMainThread() async { print(">>>> IN runInMainThread(), Thread.isMainThread \(Thread.isMainThread)") await runInBackgroundThread() } private nonisolated func runInBackgroundThread() async { print(">>>> IN runInBackgroundThread(), Thread.isMainThread \(Thread.isMainThread)") } } Output: >>>> IN runInMainThread(), Thread.isMainThread true >>>> IN runInBackgroundThread(), Thread.isMainThread false However, starting with Xcode 26.2, Apple introduced the Swift Compiler – Concurrency settings. When running the same code with the default configuration: Approachable Concurrency = Yes Default Actor Isolation = MainActor This is the output Output: >>>> IN runInMainThread(), Thread.isMainThread true >>>> IN runInBackgroundThread(), Thread.isMainThread true the nonisolated function now executes on the main thread. This raises the following questions: What is the correct Swift Compiler – Concurrency configuration if I want a nonisolated function to run off the main thread? Is nonisolated still an appropriate way to ensure code runs on a background thread?

Hi there, First thanks for all the work on BGContinuedProcessingTask! It looks really promising. I have a question / issue around the behavior when a BGContinuedProcessingTask expires. Here is my setup. I have an app who's responsible for uploading large files in the field (AKA wifi is not expected) For a given file, it can likely fail due to network conditions I'm using Multipart upload though so I can retry a file to pick up where it left off. I use one taskIdentifier per file, and when the file fails, I can retry the task and have it continue where it left off (I am reusing the taskIdentifier here for retries, let me know if I shouldn't be doing that) Here is the behavior I am seeing I start an upload, it seems to be uploading normally I turn on airplane mode to simulate expiration of the task the task fails as expected after ~30 seconds, and I see the failure in my home screen. I have callbacks in the task to put my app in the proper state on expiration / failure I turn back on airplane mode and I retry the task, the way I do this is I do NOT re-register, I simply re-submit the task with the same TaskIdentifier. What I would have expected is that the failure task is REPLACED with the new task and new progress. Instead what I see is TWO ContinuedBackgroundProcessingTasks, one in the failure state and one in progress. My question is How can I make retries reuse the same task notification item? OR if that's not possible, how do I programmatically clear the task failure? I've tried cancelTask but that doesn't seem to clear it.

I'm making an operator Publisher, which has to wrap the upstream publisher. But I want the operator to conditionally conform to ConnectablePublisher, but only when the upstream publisher does the same. I can make my connect() call the upstream's connect(), but is that all I have to do? That Apple's plumbing will automatically hold back the initial call to the Subscription object if the publisher is connectable. Otherwise, I need to make a flag in the subscription for when to connect, which would involve an infinitely copyable struct somehow send a message to a unique class/actor. That last part makes sense to me, but it also seems like too much work for something plug-and-play. Having Apple's implementation taking care of that issue also makes sense, and would be a better solution.

We're developing an Electron app for MacOS App Store. When updating our app through TestFlight, TestFlight prompts "Close This App to Update", and when I click "Continue" our app would be "Terminated" for update. Now this is where things go wrong. On MacOS 15 our app seems to be gracefully terminating (We attached it with lldb and it shows that our app returns with 0 when we click "Continue") which is fine. However for MacOS 26 though, it seems that TestFlight just directly SIGKILLs our app (indicated by lldb), which means that all of our app's child processes are left orphaned. Even worse, our app is singleton, which means that when the app relaunches it fails, because the leftover child processes from the previously SIGKILLed session is still alive, and even if we want to kill those orphaned child processes we can't because our app is sandboxed thus cannot kill processes outside of the current sandbox. We captured output from log stream (app name redacted): 12-02 22:08:16.477036-0800 0x5452     Default     0x5a4a7              677    7    installcoordinationd: [com.apple.installcoordination:daemon] -[IXSCoordinatorProgress setTotalUnitsCompleted:]: Progress for coordinator: [com.our.app/Invalid/[user-defined//Applications/OurApp.app]], Phase: IXCoordinatorProgressPhaseLoading, Percentage: 99.454 123: Attempt to set units completed on finished progress: 214095161 2025-12-02 22:08:16.483056-0800 0x53ba     Default     0x5a5c9              167    0    runningboardd: (RunningBoard) [com.apple.runningboard:connection] Received termination request from [osservice<com.apple.installcoordinationd(274)>:677] on <RBSProcessPredicate <RBSProcessBundleIdentifierPredicate "com.our.app">> with context <RBSTerminateContext| explanation:installcoordinationd app:[com.our.app/Invalid/[user-defined//Applications/OurApp.app]] uuid:A3BC0629-124E-4165-ABB7-1324380FC354 isPlaceholder:N re portType:None maxTerminationResistance:Absolute attrs:[ 2025-12-02 22:08:16.488651-0800 0x53ba     Default     0x5a5c9              167    7    runningboardd: (RunningBoard) [com.apple.runningboard:ttl] Acquiring assertion targeting system from originator [osservice<com.apple.installcoordinationd(274)>:677] with description <RBSAssertionDescriptor| "installcoordinationd app:[com.our.app/Invalid/[user-defined//Applications/OurApp.app]] uuid:A3BC0629-124E-4165-ABB7-1324380FC354 isPlaceholder:N" ID:167-677-1463 target:system attributes:[ 2025-12-02 22:08:16.489353-0800 0x53ba     Default     0x5a5c9              167    0    runningboardd: (RunningBoard) [com.apple.runningboard:process] [app<application.com.our.app.485547.485561(501)>:2470] Terminating with context: <RBSTerminateContext| explanation:installcoordinationd app:[com.our.app/Invalid/[user-defined//Applications/OurApp.app]] uuid:A3BC0629-124E-4165-ABB7-1324380FC354 isPlaceholder:N reportType:None maxTerminationResistance:Absolute attrs:[ 2025-12-02 22:10:23.920869-0800 0x5a5a     Default     0x5a4c6              674    14   appstoreagent: [com.apple.appstored:Library] [A95D57D7] Completed with 1 result: <ASDApp: 0xc932a8780>: {bundleID = com.our.app; completedUnitCount = 600; path = /Applications/OurApp.app; installed = 0} 2025-12-02 22:10:32.027304-0800 0x5ae5     Default     0x5a4c7              674    14   appstoreagent: [com.apple.appstored:Library] [BEB5F2FD] Completed with 1 result: <ASDApp: 0xc932a8780>: {bundleID = com.our.app; completedUnitCount = 600; path = /Applications/OurApp.app; installed = 0} 2025-12-02 22:10:36.542321-0800 0x5b81     Default     0x5a4c8              674    14   appstoreagent: [com.apple.appstored:Library] [185B9DD6] Completed with 1 result: <ASDApp: 0xc932a8780>: {bundleID = com.our.app; completedUnitCount = 600; path = /Applications/OurApp.app; installed = 0} The line "Terminating with context" seems suspicious. This line is not seen on MacOS 15, only MacOS 26. Is this documented behavior? If so, how can we handle this?