Swift 6 Compatibility

[Supereg]

Swift 6 Compatibility

♻️ Current situation & Problem

This PR enables strict concurrency and makes SpeziOnboarding compatible with Swift 6.

⚙️ Release Notes

• Swift 6 Compatibility.
• Fixed an issue with onboarding identifiers not working with Xcode 16

📚 Documentation

--

✅ Testing

Unit tests were adjusted to be more stable and run slightly faster.

📝 Code of Conduct & Contributing Guidelines

By submitting creating this pull request, you agree to follow our Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines:

• I agree to follow the Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines.

[Supereg]

@PSchmiedmayer we currently skip the export consent form tests after opening the share sheet. With the current beta simulators the save button just stays disabled. Generally, the Files app is completely broken (you cannot create Folders etc).
Therefore, the test is skipped if we encounter a disabled "Save" button. Nonetheless, the test itself was improved to be more stable when running on 17.5 versions.

Looking at the current build output, it seems there are only iOS 18 simulators available, even when building with Xcode 15. Is there anyway to keep the iOS 17.5 simulators even though if we might need to manually tag the version in the destination for SpeziOnboarding. Otherwise, it seems like the PDF export has to remain untested till Apple fixes that issue (if they do 🙂).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.15%. Comparing base (8d6dda3) to head (83e51b7).

Files	Patch %	Lines
...nboarding/OnboardingIdentifiableViewModifier.swift	62.50%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #55      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   77.39%   77.15%   -0.24%     
==========================================
  Files          23       23              
  Lines        1185     1190       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits          917      918       +1     
- Misses        268      272       +4     

Files	Coverage Δ
...nboarding/ConsentView/ConsentDocument+Export.swift	98.06% <100.00%> (ø)
Sources/SpeziOnboarding/OnboardingDataSource.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ding/OnboardingFlow/OnboardingStepIdentifier.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...oarding/OnboardingFlow/OnboardingViewBuilder.swift	53.85% <100.00%> (ø)
...nboarding/OnboardingIdentifiableViewModifier.swift	72.73% <62.50%> (-12.98%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8d6dda3...83e51b7. Read the comment docs.

[PSchmiedmayer]

@Supereg Unfortunately it seems like automatically using an iOS Simulator version higher than the Xcode version was bundled with is a regression in Xcode. Only saw this with iOS 18 simulators so far.

I agree that we should disable the tests for now; they mainly just test the files app anyways (which Apple doesn't seem to do 😄) and it is not our responsibility to add UI tests for their applications.

I did a similar thing in #51 and it seemed to have worked there.

Fine with merging this as is; thanks for all the work @Supereg!

[Supereg]

@Supereg Unfortunately it seems like automatically using an iOS Simulator version higher than the Xcode version was bundled with is a regression in Xcode. Only saw this with iOS 18 simulators so far.

I agree that we should disable the tests for now; they mainly just test the files app anyways (which Apple doesn't seem to do 😄) and it is not our responsibility to add UI tests for their applications.

I did a similar thing in #51 and it seemed to have worked there.

Fine with merging this as is; thanks for all the work @Supereg!

I wrote the tests in a way, that they automatically run again if they detect that saving files is possible again.

In this case it's not about testing the Files App, but performing some validations for the generated PDF document. This is how we, e.g., detected that the signature field was never shown on visionOS.

But we are reworking the PDF export anyways. So it might be less fragile anyways and less platform-dependent anyway. And maybe there is a way to just unit test the export? This would also be much faster to execute.