51 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
51 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: guidance
|
|
project: fidelity
|
|
status: active
|
|
updated: 2026-04-17
|
|
tags:
|
|
- ios
|
|
- fidelity
|
|
---
|
|
# Project Swift Guidance
|
|
|
|
## Goal
|
|
|
|
Apply Swift/iOS advice in a way that fits Fidelity's XFlow, Fid4, XFlowViewMaker, and FTFrameworks environment.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Fidelity-Specific Constraints
|
|
|
|
- XFlow is backend-driven; UI behavior may be service/configuration driven, not purely local Swift code.
|
|
- Fid4 is the real consumer validation target for many issues.
|
|
- XFlowViewMaker and FTFrameworks can affect whether a fix is visible in Fid4.
|
|
- CocoaPods and private podspec-repo behavior are part of the real integration surface, not just build tooling details.
|
|
- REST migration constraints still matter; do not assume REST is active by default.
|
|
- Some work happens behind feature flags, especially risky consumer-impact changes.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## SwiftUI / XFlow Priorities
|
|
|
|
- Treat modal presentation, dismissal sequencing, and lifecycle boundaries as high-risk areas.
|
|
- Be careful when removing UIKit bridges such as `UIHostingController`; preserve consumer behavior and rollout safety.
|
|
- When discussing SwiftUI architecture, include how the change affects:
|
|
- backend-driven flow rendering
|
|
- consumer app integration
|
|
- feature flags
|
|
- validation in Fid4
|
|
- UIKit/SwiftUI parity
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Answering Rules
|
|
|
|
- If the user asks a general Swift question, answer generally but include a Fidelity/XFlow note when relevant.
|
|
- If the user asks about a code change, separate modern best practice from what is safe for the current project.
|
|
- If codebase constraints are unknown, say what must be confirmed: deployment target, Xcode version, module ownership, feature flag path, and consumer validation path.
|
|
- If the work touches dependency propagation, published specs, or consumer upgrade behavior, explicitly include CocoaPods and podspec-repo reasoning instead of treating them as secondary operational noise.
|
|
- If the user asks whether CocoaPods, podspec repositories, or dependency propagation is good/bad practice, corroborate with current CocoaPods/Apple/Swift documentation and then adapt the recommendation to Fidelity's release path.
|
|
- Do not recommend replacing CocoaPods with SPM just because SPM is modern; first identify current integration constraints, private specs usage, release ownership, consumer app expectations, and migration cost.
|
|
- For manager-ready explanations, connect the technical recommendation to scope, risk, and validation.
|