docs(ios): retire three refusal notes that outlived their refusals - #112
Closed
chrisbbreuer wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
docs(ios): retire three refusal notes that outlived their refusals#112chrisbbreuer wants to merge 1 commit into
chrisbbreuer wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
`scheduleNotification` sat with the Swift shim for days after the thing blocking it was fixed, because the note describing the blocker was still there and nobody re-read it. Sweeping for the same shape found three more. **`bridge_mobile_permissions.zig`** contradicted itself twice over `openSettings`. Its module header already said the action "**is** claimed now", while the doc comment three lines above the `A` block still called it "deliberately absent" and warned against adding it — and `A` has declared it since bdfa2ae. The header also said the ratchet "keeps counting `openSettings` as not-yet-migrated", which stopped being true the moment it was declared; what the ratchet actually still counts is the payload values `requestPermission` leaves to the shim — location, photos, contacts, calendar, reminders — so the sentence now names those. **`bridge_mobile_display.zig`** said badge authorization "is not attempted here". It is attempted now: `requestBadgeAuthorization` asks before the badge is written. That note was mine, left behind in the commit that added the ask. None of this changes behaviour. It is worth a commit because the cost of these is measurable rather than theoretical: a note that describes a limitation the code no longer has reads exactly like a note that describes a current one, and the only way to tell is to re-derive the whole argument. `bgtasks`' `registerBackgroundTask` note was checked in the same sweep and is still accurate — `BGTaskScheduler.register` must run before launch finishes, so a page-triggered call is late by construction and raises an uncatchable exception. That one stays.
Contributor
|
Reopening under the correct account. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
scheduleNotification(#110) sat with the Swift shim for days after the thing blocking it was fixed, because the note describing the blocker was still there and nobody re-read it. I swept for the same shape and found three more.bridge_mobile_permissions.zigcontradicted itselfIts module header already says
openSettings"is claimed now". The doc comment three lines above theAblock still called it "deliberately absent" and warned against adding it — whileAhas declared it sincebdfa2ae, androuteFor,capability_actionsand the handler all serve it.The header also said the ratchet "keeps counting
openSettingsas not-yet-migrated". That stopped being true when it was declared; the extraction confirmsopenSettingsis not among the 25. What the ratchet does still count is the payload valuesrequestPermissionleaves to the shim — location, photos, contacts, calendar, reminders — so the sentence names those instead.bridge_mobile_display.zigdescribed a gap I had already closedIt said badge authorization "is not attempted here".
requestBadgeAuthorizationasks before the badge is written, as of #105. That note was mine, left behind in the very commit that added the ask.Checked and kept
bgtasks'registerBackgroundTasknote is still accurate:BGTaskScheduler.registermust run before the app finishes launching, so a page-triggered call is late by construction and raises an uncatchableNSInternalInconsistencyException. Genuinely still blocked, note stays.Why this is worth a commit
No behaviour changes. But a note describing a limitation the code no longer has reads exactly like one describing a current limitation, and the only way to tell them apart is to re-derive the whole argument from scratch. That cost is measurable here rather than theoretical — it is the reason an action stayed on the shim through several passes that each read the note and believed it.
zig build test: 150/150 steps, 0 failures.