david.delagneau
1ad707373a
- Created daily log entries for May 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, and 21, capturing work done, findings, and next steps. - Established a daily logs index for easy navigation of daily notes. - Developed templates for daily logs, decisions, meeting notes, people, systems, and work items to standardize documentation. - Introduced base files for filtering and displaying various types of project knowledge, including daily notes, decisions, people, systems, work items, and workstreams. - Added maps for current work, fidelity apps, and fidelity domain to enhance project navigation and context.
2.4 KiB
2.4 KiB
type, project, status, updated, tags
| type | project | status | updated | tags | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| guidance | fidelity | active | 2026-04-17 |
|
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.