Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

While using XCFramework as a vendored_framework, Instead of IOS Archive, It is generating the Generic Xcode Archive. #9458

Closed
1 task done
sasikumar-mobiotics opened this issue Jan 6, 2020 · 10 comments
Assignees
Labels
r:xcframeworks Related to the support for XCFrameworks s2:confirmed Issues that have been confirmed by a CocoaPods contributor
Milestone

Comments

@sasikumar-mobiotics
Copy link

sasikumar-mobiotics commented Jan 6, 2020

Hi,

Report

What did you do?

ℹ I have created XCFramework, that one I added as vendored_frameworks and distributed in cocoapods.

What did you expect to happen?

ℹ Once we install that pod into the client's IOS projects, It is working fine when running into a simulator or real device. But when we create the archive it is expected to create IOS Archive.

What happened instead?

ℹ Instead of IOS Archive, It is generating the Generic Xcode Archive. When we use .framework file, it is working fine. Problem with XCFramework only.

CocoaPods Environment

ℹ CocoaPods version 1.9.0.beta.2
ℹ Xcode Version - 11.2.1

Project that demonstrates the issue

ℹ I have verified this repo also cocoapods integration repo. The Same problem.

ℹ Try with this also pod 'CoconutLib'

@amorde Please help me to resolve this issue. I looking forward to hearing from you. If you need more information let me know.

@sasikumar-mobiotics sasikumar-mobiotics changed the title When I use XCFramework in vendored_framework, In Client apps, Instead of IOS Archive, It is generating the Generic Xcode Archive. While using XCFramework as a vendored_framework, Instead of IOS Archive, It is generating the Generic Xcode Archive. Jan 7, 2020
@amorde
Copy link
Member

amorde commented Jan 9, 2020

Confirmed, thank you for submitting this! Looks like the xcframework slice is put in the wrong place when archiving. Still looking into why but can reproduce it.

@amorde amorde added the s2:confirmed Issues that have been confirmed by a CocoaPods contributor label Jan 9, 2020
@amorde
Copy link
Member

amorde commented Jan 9, 2020

The framework slice is being put into the correct place, but the copy from the Prepare Artifacts script is left in ${TARGET_BUILD_DIR} which is a different location when archiving. We need to store it somewhere else or delete that copy when archiving.

@dnkoutso dnkoutso added this to the 1.9.0 milestone Jan 9, 2020
@amorde amorde self-assigned this Jan 9, 2020
@amorde amorde added the r:xcframeworks Related to the support for XCFrameworks label Jan 9, 2020
@dnkoutso
Copy link
Contributor

Fixed. Will ship in 1.9.0.beta.3

@sasikumar-mobiotics
Copy link
Author

Fixed. Will ship in 1.9.0.beta.3

Thanks @amorde and @dnkoutso

@NishantTiwarins
Copy link

Hi @amorde and @dnkoutso Is the 1.9.0.beta.3 released?

@dnkoutso
Copy link
Contributor

Not yet but you can use https://bundler.io/ to point to the 1-9-stable branch if you want the latest commits from now.

@NishantTiwarins
Copy link

@dnkoutso Thanks for the quick reply. Will do that, also is it possible to know by when you will be releasing ? Any ETA would be nice.

@dnkoutso
Copy link
Contributor

dnkoutso commented Jan 28, 2020

@NishantTiwarins we do not do any scheduled releases, my best guess is this week but no promises.

@NishantTiwarins
Copy link

@dnkoutso Okay no problem. Anyway thanks for the update and a quick reply.

@Evomo
Copy link

Evomo commented Jan 28, 2020

I have the same issue. Thanks for your quick fix. Great work. Looking forward to test ist.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
r:xcframeworks Related to the support for XCFrameworks s2:confirmed Issues that have been confirmed by a CocoaPods contributor
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants