Hello everyone! I'm having a problem with background tasks running in the foreground. When a user enters the app, a background task is triggered. I've written some code to check if the app is in the foreground and to prevent the task from running, but it doesn't always work. Sometimes the task runs in the background as expected, but other times it runs in the foreground, as I mentioned earlier. Could it be that I'm doing something wrong? Any suggestions would be appreciated. here is code: class BackgroundTaskService { @Environment(\.scenePhase) var scenePhase static let shared = BackgroundTaskService() private init() {} // MARK: - create task func createCheckTask() { let identifier = TaskIdentifier.check BGTaskScheduler.shared.getPendingTaskRequests { requests in if requests.contains(where: { $0.identifier == identifier.rawValue }) { return } self.createByInterval(identifier: identifier.rawValue, interval: identifier.interval) } } private func createByInterval(identifier: String, interval: TimeInterval) { let request = BGProcessingTaskRequest(identifier: identifier) request.earliestBeginDate = Date(timeIntervalSinceNow: interval) scheduleTask(request: request) } // MARK: submit task private func scheduleTask(request: BGProcessingTaskRequest) { do { try BGTaskScheduler.shared.submit(request) } catch { // some actions with error } } // MARK: background actions func checkTask(task: BGProcessingTask) { let today = Calendar.current.startOfDay(for: Date()) let lastExecutionDate = UserDefaults.standard.object(forKey: "lastCheckExecutionDate") as? Date ?? Date.distantPast let notRunnedToday = !Calendar.current.isDate(today, inSameDayAs: lastExecutionDate) guard notRunnedToday else { task.setTaskCompleted(success: true) createCheckTask() return } if scenePhase == .background { TaskActionStore.shared.getAction(for: task.identifier)?() } task.setTaskCompleted(success: true) UserDefaults.standard.set(today, forKey: "lastCheckExecutionDate") createCheckTask() } } And in AppDelegate: BGTaskScheduler.shared.register(forTaskWithIdentifier: "check", using: nil) { task in guard let task = task as? BGProcessingTask else { return } BackgroundTaskService.shared.checkNodeTask(task: task) } BackgroundTaskService.shared.createCheckTask()

Hi, We are running into issues with iOS app prewarming, where the system launches our app before the user has entered their passcode. In our case, the app stores flags, counters, and session data in UserDefaults and the Keychain. During prewarm launches: UserDefaults only returns default values (nil, 0, false). We have no way of knowing whether this information is valid or just a placeholder caused by prewarming. Keychain items with kSecAttrAccessibleAfterFirstUnlockThisDeviceOnly are inaccessible, which can lead to broken business logic (the app can assume no session exists). No special launch options or environment variables appear to be set. We can reproduce this 100% of the time by starting a Live Activity in the app before reboot. Here’s an example of the workaround we tried, following older recommendations: __attribute__((constructor)) static void ModuleInitializer(void) { char* isPrewarm = getenv("ActivePrewarm"); if (isPrewarm != NULL && isPrewarm[0] == '1') { exit(0); // prevent prewarm launch from proceeding } } On iOS 16+, the ActivePrewarm environment variable doesn’t seem to exist anymore (though older docs and SDKs such as Sentry reference it). We also tried listening for UIApplication.protectedDataDidBecomeAvailableNotification, but this is not specific to prewarming (it also fires when the device gets unlocked) and can cause watchdog termination if we delay work too long. Questions: Is there a supported way to opt out of app prewarming? What is the correct way to detect when an app is being prewarmed? Is the ActivePrewarm environment variable still supported in iOS 16+? Ideally, the UserDefaults API itself should indicate whether it is returning valid stored values or defaults due to the app being launched in a prewarm session. We understand opting out may impact performance, but data security and integrity are our priority. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

I am considering to use the BGAppRefreshTask mechanism, and while I think I have read and understood all documentation and hints in this forum about it (especially the limitations), the one thing I do not understand is: how can I debug it? I cannot find a way to trigger the BGAppRefreshTask execution reliably and immediately. I would have expected the Xcode Debug->Simulate Background Fetch menu to do this for me, but it only sends the app into the background. I am working with the unmodified (except for a few added print()) ColorFeed sample code project from Apple, which schedules a task 15min into the future when it goes to the background. Using a real device, I have not managed to trigger execution of the BGAppRefreshTask more often than once a day so far. Surely, there must be a way to trigger it much more often solely for debugging and development purposes (I am totally happy with all restrictions for the final app). So what detail am I missing here?

Just trying to understand the documentation. Obviously, we can send a request to the service to return all the data at once. Can the data arrive in pieces, involving either multiple async callbacks or a Combine Publisher?

As far as I understand, the main thread has a run loop. When an iOS app launches, the process must keep the run loop running to stay alive. Does that mean the main thread is the very first thread created when the process starts?

I'm developing a safety-critical monitoring app that needs to fetch data from government APIs every 30 minutes and trigger emergency audio alerts for threshold violations. The app must work reliably in background since users depend on it for safety alerts even while sleeping. Main Challenge: iOS background limitations seem to prevent consistent 30-minute intervals. Standard BGTaskScheduler and timers get suspended after a few minutes in background. Question: What's the most reliable approach to ensure consistent 30-minute background monitoring for a safety-critical app where missed alerts could have serious consequences? Are there special entitlements or frameworks for emergency/safety applications? The app needs to function like an alarm clock - working reliably even when backgrounded with emergency audio override capabilities.

I am developing the application in Mac. My requirement is to start the application automatically when user login. I have tried adding the plist file in launch agents, But it doesn't achieve my requirement. Please find the code added in the launch agents <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd"> <plist version="1.0"> <dict> <key>Label</key> <string>com.sftk.secure</string> <key>ProgramArguments</key> <array> <string>/Applications/Testing.app/Contents/MacOS/Testing</string> </array> <key>RunAtLoad</key> <true/> <key>KeepAlive</key> <false/> </dict> </plist> I have tried by adding manually in the setting, but it was opened sometimes and closed suddenly. On open manually it works. Please provide a solution to start the application automatically on system starts

I work for a large medical device company. We have a 1st party BLE enabled medical device that must be very battery efficient. To this end, if a connection is lost, the BLE radio is powered down after 60 seconds and will only turn back on when a physical button on the device is pressed. I've been tasked with connecting to the device, staying connected to the device, and being able to retrieve data from the device upon a timed action. For instance, this could include a data read and transmission while they sleep. The key part of this is staying reliably connected for extended periods of time. This is a BYOD setup, and we cannot control power profiles. I would very much appreciate any information, recommendations, and/or insights into solving this problem. Thanks!

I'm working on an XPC server and need to determine the owner of the client process that connects to it. Specifically, I'd like to retrieve details such as the fully qualified user name or other identifying information from the XPC client connection.I'm considering using xpc_connection_get_pid() to get the client’s process ID, but I’m unsure of the best way to map this to the user who owns the process. Is there a recommended API or approach to capture this information securely?

Hello, I'm developing a Mac application that uses a network extension. I'm trying to implement XPC to pass data between my main app and system extension and I'm using the SimpleFirewall demo app as a guide to do this. One thing I can't understand is how the ViewController in the SimpleFirewall main app has access to the class IPCConnection in the SimpleFirewallExtension without it being public and without SimpleFirewallExtension being imported in ViewController.

Hi everyone, We’re developing a macOS SwiftUI app that uses a local Swift Package (CasSherpaCore) to invoke an external compiled binary (sherpa-onnx-offline-tts) for text-to-speech synthesis using system calls. The package works flawlessly when tested from terminal or via a lightweight test C program. However, when we invoke it from a SwiftUI app (even with Full Disk Access granted to Xcode and Terminal), we consistently get the error: sh: /Users/xxxxxxxxxxx/SherpaONNX/sherpa-onnx/build/bin/sherpa-onnx-offline-tts: Operation not permitted We’ve tried: Granting Full Disk Access to Xcode and Terminal. Removing the quarantine flag with xattr -d com.apple.quarantine. Setting executable permission via chmod +x. Using both system() and Process in C and Swift contexts. Testing within a Swift Package that’s integrated into the app as a local dependency. Running the command manually from terminal (works perfectly). It appears that macOS (or Xcode’s runtime sandbox) is restricting execution of binaries from certain locations or contexts when launched via system() inside the app. Questions: Is there a specific entitlement or configuration that allows execution of local binaries from a SwiftUI macOS app? Is this related to System Integrity Protection (SIP) or a hardened runtime limitation? Are there best practices or alternative approaches to safely execute local TTS binaries from within a Swift app? Any help would be deeply appreciated. This is a core feature in our project and we’re stuck at this point. Thank you so much in advance!

In the header for workloop.h there is this note: A dispatch workloop is a "subclass" of dispatch_queue_t which can be passed to all APIs accepting a dispatch queue, except for functions from the dispatch_sync() family. dispatch_async_and_wait() must be used for workloop objects. Functions from the dispatch_sync() family on queues targeting a workloop are still permitted but discouraged for performance reasons. I have a couple questions related to this. First, I'd like to better understand what the alluded-to 'performance reasons' are that cause this pattern to be discouraged in the 'queues targeting a workloop' scenario. From further interrogation of the headers, I've found these explicit callouts regarding differences in the dispatch_sync and dispatch_async_and_wait API: dispatch_sync: Work items submitted to a queue with dispatch_sync() do not observe certain queue attributes of that queue when invoked (such as autorelease frequency and QOS class). dispatch_async_and_wait: Work items submitted to a queue with dispatch_async_and_wait() observe all queue attributes of that queue when invoked (inluding [sic] autorelease frequency or QOS class). Additionally, dispatch_async_and_wait has a section of the headers devoted to 'Differences with dispatch_sync()', though I can't say I entirely follow the distinctions it attempts to draw. Based on that, my best guess is that the 'performance reasons' are something about either QoS not being properly respected/observed or some thread context switching differences that can degrade performance, but I would appreciate insight from someone with more domain knowledge. My second question is a bit more general – taking a step back, why exactly do these two API exist? It's not clear to me from the existing documentation I've found why I would/should prefer dispatch_sync over dispatch_async_and_wait (other than the aforementioned callout noting the former is unsupported on workloops). What is the motivation for preserving both these API vs deprecating dispatch_sync in favor of dispatch_async_and_wait (or functionally subsuming one with the other)? Credit to Luna for originally posing/inspiring these questions.

The application is placed into the idle state. Subsequently, the device enters a sleep state. While the device is in sleep, App start background task within the application successfully receives its expirationHandler callback. App received the expiration callback and App called the end BGtask OS did not released the Assertion. Resulting in App getting terminated by the OS for exceeding the BG task Apple Feedback- FB19192371

My app is for personal use currently, so distribution won't be a problem. It registers a privileged helper using SMAppService, and I was wondering whether there is a way to customize the authorization dialog that the system presents to the user.

First, our app communicates with our blood glucose monitor (CGM) using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). On an iPhone 14 Pro with iOS 26.0.1, Bluetooth communication works properly even when the app is in the background and locked. Even if the phone and CGM are disconnected, the app continues to scan in the background and reconnects when the phone and CGM are back in close proximity. It won't be dormant in the background or when the screen is locked. This effectively ensures that diabetic users can monitor their blood glucose levels in real time. However, after using iOS 26.0.1 on the iPhone 17, we've received user feedback about frequent disconnections in the background. Our logs indicate that Bluetooth communication is easily disconnected when switching to the background, and then easily dormant by the system, especially when the user's screen is locked. This situation significantly impacts users' blood glucose monitoring, and users are unacceptable. What can be done?

Im using the low-level C xpc api <xpc/xpc.h> and i get this error when I run it: Underlying connection interrupted. I know this error stems from the call to xpc_session_send_message_with_reply_sync(session, message, &reply_err);. I have no previous experience with xpc or dispatch and I find the xpc docs very limited and I also found next to no code examples online. Can somebody take a look at my code and tell me what I did wrong and how to fix it? Thank you in advance. Main code: #include <stdio.h> #include <xpc/xpc.h> #include <dispatch/dispatch.h> // the context passed to mainf() struct context { char* text; xpc_session_t sess; }; // This is for later implementation and the name is also rudimentary void mainf(void* c) { //char * text = ((struct context*)c)->text; xpc_session_t session = ((struct context*)c)->sess; dispatch_queue_t messageq = dispatch_queue_create("y.ddd.main", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL); xpc_object_t message = xpc_dictionary_create(NULL, NULL, 0); xpc_dictionary_set_string(message, "test", "eeeee"); if (session == NULL) { printf("Session is NULL\n"); exit(1); } __block xpc_rich_error_t reply_err = NULL; __block xpc_object_t reply; dispatch_sync(messageq, ^{ reply = xpc_session_send_message_with_reply_sync(session, message, &reply_err); if (reply_err != NULL) printf("Reply Error: %s\n", xpc_rich_error_copy_description(reply_err)); }); if (reply != NULL) printf("Reply: %s\n", xpc_dictionary_get_string(reply, "test")); else printf("Reply is NULL\n"); } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { // Create seperate queue for mainf() dispatch_queue_t mainq = dispatch_queue_create("y.ddd.main", DISPATCH_QUEUE_CONCURRENT); dispatch_queue_t xpcq = dispatch_queue_create("y.ddd.xpc", NULL); // Create the context being sent to mainf struct context* c = malloc(sizeof(struct context)); c->text = malloc(sizeof("Hello")); strcpy(c->text, "Hello"); xpc_rich_error_t sess_err = NULL; xpc_session_t session = xpc_session_create_xpc_service("y.getFilec", xpcq, XPC_SESSION_CREATE_INACTIVE, &sess_err); if (sess_err != NULL) { printf("Session Create Error: %s\n", xpc_rich_error_copy_description(sess_err)); xpc_release(sess_err); exit(1); } xpc_release(sess_err); xpc_session_set_incoming_message_handler(session, ^(xpc_object_t message) { printf("message recieved\n"); }); c->sess = session; xpc_rich_error_t sess_ac_err = NULL; xpc_session_activate(session, &sess_ac_err); if (sess_err != NULL) { printf("Session Activate Error: %s\n", xpc_rich_error_copy_description(sess_ac_err)); xpc_release(sess_ac_err); exit(1); } xpc_release(sess_ac_err); xpc_retain(session); dispatch_async_f(mainq, (void*)c, mainf); xpc_release(session); dispatch_main(); } XPC Service code: #include <stdio.h> #include <xpc/xpc.h> #include <dispatch/dispatch.h> int main(void) { xpc_rich_error_t lis_err = NULL; xpc_listener_t listener = xpc_listener_create("y.getFilec", NULL, XPC_LISTENER_CREATE_INACTIVE, ^(xpc_session_t sess){ printf("Incoming Session: %s\n", xpc_session_copy_description(sess)); xpc_session_set_incoming_message_handler(sess, ^(xpc_object_t mess) { xpc_object_t repl = xpc_dictionary_create_empty(); xpc_dictionary_set_string(repl, "test", "test"); xpc_rich_error_t send_repl_err = xpc_session_send_message(sess, repl); if (send_repl_err != NULL) printf("Send Reply Error: %s\n", xpc_rich_error_copy_description(send_repl_err)); }); xpc_rich_error_t sess_ac_err = NULL; xpc_session_activate(sess, &sess_ac_err); if (sess_ac_err != NULL) printf("Session Activate: %s\n", xpc_rich_error_copy_description(sess_ac_err)); }, &lis_err); if (lis_err != NULL) { printf("Listener Error: %s\n", xpc_rich_error_copy_description(lis_err)); xpc_release(lis_err); } xpc_rich_error_t lis_ac_err = NULL; xpc_listener_activate(listener, &lis_ac_err); if (lis_ac_err != NULL) { printf("Listener Activate Error: %s\n", xpc_rich_error_copy_description(lis_ac_err)); xpc_release(lis_ac_err); } dispatch_main(); }

Basically the title. I am trying to implement a local notification to trigger, regardless of internet connection, around 3-5pm if a certain array in the app is not empty to get the user to sync unsaved work with the cloud. I wanted to used the BGAppRefreshTask as I saw it was lightweight and quick for just posting a banner notification but after inspecting it in the console, it looks like it needs internet connection to trigger. Is this the case or am I doing something wrong? Should I be using the BGProcessingTask instead?

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM Logs and data from our application indicate various errors that strongly suggest that our application is being launched in a state in which the device is likely locked. We are looking for guidance on how to identify, debug, reproduce, and fix these cases. Our application does not use any of the common mechanisms for background activity, such as Background App Refresh, Navigation, Audio, etc. Errors we get in our logs such as "authorization denied (code: 23)" when trying to access a file in our app's container on disk (a simple disk cache for data our application uses) strongly suggest that the device is operating in a state, such as being locked, where our application lacks the requisite permissions it would normally have during operation. Furthermore, attempts to access authentication information stored in the keychain also fails. We use kSecAttrAccessibleWhenUnlocked when accessing items we store in the keychain. We have investigated "Prewarming", as well as our notification extension that helps process incoming push notifications, but cannot find any way to recreate this behavior. Are there any steps Apple engineers can recommend to triage and debug this? Some additional questions that would help us: What are all of the symptoms that we can look for if prewarming escapes the intended execution context? What are all of the circumstances in which we would be unauthorized to access the app’s documents/file directories even if it works correctly in normal operation? STEPS TO REPRODUCE Unfortunately, we are unable to forcibly reproduce this behavior in our application, so we're looking for guidance on how we might simulate this behavior in Xcode / Instruments. Are there tools that Apple provides that would allow us to simulate certain behaviors like prewarming to verify our application's functionality? Are there other reasons our application might be launched while the device is locked? Are there other reasons we would receive security errors when accessing the keychain or disk that are unrelated to the device being locked?

In iOS Background Execution limits, I see this: When the user ‘force quits’ an app by swiping up in the multitasking UI, iOS interprets that to mean that the user doesn’t want the app running at all. iOS also sets a flag that prevents the app from being launched in the background. That flag gets cleared when the user next launches the app manually. However, I see that when I close an app on iPadOS 26 with the red X, the app doesn't appear in the multitasking UI. So are they treated as force closes and prevented from running background tasks?

Dear Apple： We are developing an app for file sharing between mobile devices. We want to create an iOS app that can continue sharing files with other devices even when it is running in the background. We are using WLAN channels for file sharing. Could you please advise on which background persistence measures we should use to ensure the iOS app can maintain file transfer when it goes to the background? Thank you.