Hi guys, also those at Apple, I love what you all do and make, long time Linux user switched since silicon. But is there perhaps any timeline on improving the interaction between iCloud and git? Perhaps it is on me to check beforehand, but I enabled Desktop & Doc sync on iCloud (which included some git repos) and these now malfunction completely. Bad object errors, lost wheels, insanely long syncing, and worst of all - randomly removed environment variables! I only noticed when random stuff stopped working out of the blue; only after re-configuring zsh and doing scorched earth on brew did it click. I mean, there is a '.nosync' flaggy thing to add to dirs, but it isn't even officially supported. Moreover, when trying to disable sync for docs, it will delete local repos! So either it's disabling and starting all over again, or waiting for the sync to finish (which breaks things) and going through a long restoration process. I don't expect iCloud for the average Joe to be super specced for developers, but perhaps there could be room for some minor improvements that would at least prevent git repositories from completely breaking, e.g. just ignoring them or not syncing certain folder/file types. Restoring the whole thing (if even possible) is an extremely long and tedious process. Sorry for the rant, but I feel this might be appreciated. One of the things I like about this ecosystem, proprietary it is, is the seemliness and easy of use. If iCloud Drive is advertised as 'it will work', it's only fair that this would apply to developers too (and that they are not required to check beforehand whether it will break all of their git repositories). Or it is just me getting old. :) Cheers, Frans

Document based SwiftData apps do not autosave changes to the ModelContext at all. This issue has been around since the first release of this SwiftData feature. In fact, the Apple WWDC sample project (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swiftui/building-a-document-based-app-using-swiftdata) does not persist any data in its current state, unless one inserts modelContext.save() calls after every data change. I have reported this under the feedback ID FB16503154, as it seemed to me that there is no feedback report about the fundamental issue yet. Other posts related to this problem: https://forums.developer.apple.com/forums/thread/757172 https://forums.developer.apple.com/forums/thread/768906 https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/764189

I have a SwiftData model where I need to customize behavior based on the value of a property (connectorType). Here’s a simplified version of my model: @Model public final class ConnectorModel { public var connectorType: String ... func doSomethingDifferentForEveryConnectorType() { ... } } I’d like to implement doSomethingDifferentForEveryConnectorType in a way that allows the behavior to vary depending on connectorType, and I want to follow best practices for scalability and maintainability. I’ve come up with three potential solutions, each with pros and cons, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on which one makes the most sense or if there’s a better approach: **Option 1: Use switch Statements ** func doSomethingDifferentForEveryConnectorType() { switch connectorType { case "HTTP": // HTTP-specific logic case "WebSocket": // WebSocket-specific logic default: // Fallback logic } } Pros: Simple to implement and keeps the SwiftData model observable by SwiftUI without any additional wrapping. Cons: If more behaviors or methods are added, the code could become messy and harder to maintain. **Option 2: Use a Wrapper with Inheritance around swiftdata model ** @Observable class ParentConnector { var connectorModel: ConnectorModel init(connectorModel: ConnectorModel) { self.connectorModel = connectorModel } func doSomethingDifferentForEveryConnectorType() { fatalError("Not implemented") } } @Observable class HTTPConnector: ParentConnector { override func doSomethingDifferentForEveryConnectorType() { // HTTP-specific logic } } Pros: Logic for each connector type is cleanly organized in subclasses, making it easy to extend and maintain. Cons: Requires introducing additional observable classes, which could add unnecessary complexity. **Option 3: Use a @Transient class that customizes behavior ** protocol ConnectorProtocol { func doSomethingDifferentForEveryConnectorType(connectorModel: ConnectorModel) } class HTTPConnectorImplementation: ConnectorProtocol { func doSomethingDifferentForEveryConnectorType(connectorModel: ConnectorModel) { // HTTP-specific logic } } Then add this to the model: @Model public final class ConnectorModel { public var connectorType: String @Transient public var connectorImplementation: ConnectorProtocol? // Or alternatively from swiftui I could call myModel.connectorImplementation.doSomethingDifferentForEveryConnectorType() to avoid this wrapper func doSomethingDifferentForEveryConnectorType() { connectorImplementation?.doSomethingDifferentForEveryConnectorType(connectorModel: self) } } Pros: Decouples model logic from connector-specific behavior. Avoids creating additional observable classes and allows for easy extension. Cons: Requires explicitly passing the model to the protocol implementation, and setup for determining the correct implementation needs to be handled elsewhere. My Questions Which approach aligns best with SwiftData and SwiftUI best practices, especially for scalable and maintainable apps? Are there better alternatives that I haven’t considered? If Option 3 (protocol with dependency injection) is preferred, what’s the best way to a)manage the transient property 2) set the correct implementation and 3) pass reference to swiftdata model? Thanks in advance for your advice!

About 4 months ago, I shipped the first version of my app with 4 versioned schemas that, unintentionally, had the same versionIdentifier of 1.2.0 in 2 of them: V1: 1.0.0 V2: 1.1.0 V3: 1.2.0 V4: 1.2.0 They are ordered correctly in the MigrationPlan, and they are all lightweight. Migration works, SwiftData doesn't crash on init and I haven't encountered any issues related to this. The app syncs with iCloud. Questions, preferable for anybody with knowledge of SwiftData internals: What will break in SwiftData when there are 2 duplicate numbers? Not that I would expect it to be safe, but does it happen to be safe to ship an update that changes V4's version to 1.3.0, what was originally intended?

I am using SwiftData with CloudKit to synchronize data across multiple devices, and I have encountered an issue: occasionally, abnormal sync behavior occurs between two devices (it does not happen 100% of the time—only some users have reported this problem). It seems as if synchronization between the two devices completely stops; no matter what operations are performed on one end, the other end shows no response. After investigating, I suspect the issue might be caused by both devices simultaneously modifying the same field, which could lead to CloudKit's logic being unable to handle such conflicts and causing the sync to stall. Are there any methods to avoid or resolve this situation? Of course, I’m not entirely sure if this is the root cause. Has anyone encountered a similar issue?

The stuff I've found by searching has confused me, so hopefully someone can help simplify it for me? I have an app (I use it for logging which books I've given away), and I could either add a bunch of things to the app, or I could have another app (possibly a CLI tool) to generate some reports I'd like.

Hello, I am building a pretty large database (~40MB) to be used in my SwiftData iOS app as read-only. While inserting and updating the data, I noticed a substantial increase in size (+ ~10MB). A little digging pointed to ACHANGE and ATRANSACTION tables that apparently are dealing with Persistent History Tracking. While I do appreciate the benefits of that, I prefer to save space. Could you please point me in the right direction?

In a document based SwiftData app for macOS, how do you go about opening a (modal) child window connected to the ModelContainer of the currently open document? Using .sheet() does not really result in a good UX, as the appearing view lacks the standard window toolbar. Using a separate WindowGroup with an argument would achieve the desired UX. However, as WindowGroup arguments need to be Hashable and Codable, there is no way to pass a ModelContainer or a ModelContext there: WindowGroup(id: "myWindowGroup", for: MyWindowGroupArguments.self) { $args in ViewThatOpensInAWindow(args: args) } Is there any other way?

We're in the process of migrating our app to the Swift 6 language mode. I have hit a road block that I cannot wrap my head around, and it concerns Core Data and how we work with NSManagedObject instances. Greatly simplied, our Core Data stack looks like this: class CoreDataStack { private let persistentContainer: NSPersistentContainer var viewContext: NSManagedObjectContext { persistentContainer.viewContext } } For accessing the database, we provide Controller classes such as e.g. class PersonController { private let coreDataStack: CoreDataStack func fetchPerson(byName name: String) async throws -> Person? { try await coreDataStack.viewContext.perform { let fetchRequest = NSFetchRequest<Person>() fetchRequest.predicate = NSPredicate(format: "name == %@", name) return try fetchRequest.execute().first } } } Our view controllers use such controllers to fetch objects and populate their UI with it: class MyViewController: UIViewController { private let chatController: PersonController private let ageLabel: UILabel func populateAgeLabel(name: String) { Task { let person = try? await chatController.fetchPerson(byName: name) ageLabel.text = "\(person?.age ?? 0)" } } } This works very well, and there are no concurrency problems since the managed objects are fetched from the view context and accessed only in the main thread. When turning on Swift 6 language mode, however, the compiler complains about the line calling the controller method: Non-sendable result type 'Person?' cannot be sent from nonisolated context in call to instance method 'fetchPerson(byName:)' Ok, fair enough, NSManagedObject is not Sendable. No biggie, just add @MainActor to the controller method, so it can be called from view controllers which are also main actor. However, now the compiler shows the same error at the controller method calling viewContext.perform: Non-sendable result type 'Person?' cannot be sent from nonisolated context in call to instance method 'perform(schedule:_:)' And now I'm stumped. Does this mean NSManageObject instances cannot even be returned from calls to NSManagedObjectContext.perform? Ever? Even though in this case, @MainActor matches the context's actor isolation (since it's the view context)? Of course, in this simple example the controller method could just return the age directly, and more complex scenarios could return Sendable data structures that are instantiated inside the perform closure. But is that really the only legal solution? That would mean a huge refactoring challenge for our app, since we use NSManageObject instances fetched from the view context everywhere. That's what the view context is for, right? tl;dr: is it possible to return NSManagedObject instances fetched from the view context with Swift 6 strict concurrency enabled, and if so how?

Hi all, I am using SwiftData and cloudkit and I am having an extremely persistent bug. I am building an education section on a app that's populated with lessons via a local JSON file. I don't need this lesson data to sync to cloudkit as the lessons are static, just need them imported into swiftdata so I've tried to use the modelcontainer like this: static func createSharedModelContainer() -> ModelContainer { // --- Define Model Groups --- let localOnlyModels: [any PersistentModel.Type] = [ Lesson.self, MiniLesson.self, Quiz.self, Question.self ] let cloudKitSyncModels: [any PersistentModel.Type] = [ User.self, DailyTip.self, UserSubscription.self, UserEducationProgress.self // User progress syncs ] However, what happens is that I still get Lesson and MiniLesson record types on cloudkit and for some reason as well, whenever I update the data models or delete and reinstall the app on simulator, the lessons duplicate (what seems to happen is that a set of lessons comes from the JSON file as it should), and then 1-2 seconds later, an older set of lessons gets synced from cloudkit. I can delete the old set of lessons if I just delete the lessons and mini lessons record types, but if I update the data model again, this error reccurrs. Sorry, I don't know if I managed to explain this well but essentially I just want to stop the lessons and minilessons from being uploaded to cloudkit as I think this will fix the problem. Am I doing something wrong with the code?

Our app saves its data to iCloud by default. In most cases, this is working as intended & the data can be synced across devices with no problems. But recently, in testing, we discovered a situation where it's possible to save data before the NSMetadataQuery finishes & starts downloading the cloud files. When this happens, the query will then finish, and return the NEW file (with no other versions or conflicts). Is there a way to ensure that writing a file (version A) to ubiquitous storage when another version (version B) exists in the cloud is treated as a conflict, rather than just stomping all over the other version? I've tried querying the file metadata for the file URL (NSURLIsUbiquitousItemKey, NSMetadataUbiquitousItemDownloadingStatusKey, NSURLUbiquitousItemDownloadRequestedKey, NSURLUbiquitousItemHasUnresolvedConflictsKey) before saving, but it just returns nil.

SwiftData crashes 100% when fetching history of a model that contains an optional codable property that's updated: SwiftData/Schema.swift:389: Fatal error: Failed to materialize a keypath for someCodableID.someID from CrashModel. It is possible that this path traverses a type that does not work with append(), please file a bug report with a test. Would really appreciate some help or even a workaround. Code: import Foundation import SwiftData import Testing struct VaultsSwiftDataKnownIssuesTests { @Test func testCodableCrashInHistoryFetch() async throws { let container = try ModelContainer( for: CrashModel.self, configurations: .init( isStoredInMemoryOnly: true ) ) let context = ModelContext(container) try SimpleHistoryChecker.hasLocalHistoryChanges(context: context) // 1: insert a new value and save let model = CrashModel() model.someCodableID = SomeCodableID(someID: "testid1") context.insert(model) try context.save() // 2: check history it's fine. try SimpleHistoryChecker.hasLocalHistoryChanges(context: context) // 3: update the inserted value before then save model.someCodableID = SomeCodableID(someID: "testid2") try context.save() // The next check will always crash on fetchHistory with this error: /* SwiftData/Schema.swift:389: Fatal error: Failed to materialize a keypath for someCodableID.someID from CrashModel. It is possible that this path traverses a type that does not work with append(), please file a bug report with a test. */ try SimpleHistoryChecker.hasLocalHistoryChanges(context: context) } } @Model final class CrashModel { // optional codable crashes. var someCodableID: SomeCodableID? // these actually work: //var someCodableID: SomeCodableID //var someCodableID: [SomeCodableID] init() {} } public struct SomeCodableID: Codable { public let someID: String } final class SimpleHistoryChecker { static func hasLocalHistoryChanges(context: ModelContext) throws { let descriptor = HistoryDescriptor<DefaultHistoryTransaction>() let history = try context.fetchHistory(descriptor) guard let last = history.last else { return } print(last) } }

This is probably super simple answer that I missed, but: I have an app that has a database; I'd like to create a second app (actually a CLI tool), and access the same database. Is that possible? And, if so, how? 😄

I'm trying to build a custom FetchRequest that I can use outside a View. I've built the following ObservableFetchRequest class based on this article: https://augmentedcode.io/2023/04/03/nsfetchedresultscontroller-wrapper-for-swiftui-view-models @Observable @MainActor class ObservableFetchRequest&lt;Result: Storable&gt;: NSObject, @preconcurrency NSFetchedResultsControllerDelegate { private let controller: NSFetchedResultsController&lt;Result.E&gt; private var results: [Result] = [] init(context: NSManagedObjectContext = .default, predicate: NSPredicate? = Result.E.defaultPredicate(), sortDescriptors: [NSSortDescriptor] = Result.E.sortDescripors) { guard let request = Result.E.fetchRequest() as? NSFetchRequest&lt;Result.E&gt; else { fatalError("Failed to create fetch request for \(Result.self)") } request.predicate = predicate request.sortDescriptors = sortDescriptors controller = NSFetchedResultsController(fetchRequest: request, managedObjectContext: context, sectionNameKeyPath: nil, cacheName: nil) super.init() controller.delegate = self fetch() } private func fetch() { do { try controller.performFetch() refresh() } catch { fatalError("Failed to fetch results for \(Result.self)") } } private func refresh() { results = controller.fetchedObjects?.map { Result($0) } ?? [] } var predicate: NSPredicate? { get { controller.fetchRequest.predicate } set { controller.fetchRequest.predicate = newValue fetch() } } var sortDescriptors: [NSSortDescriptor] { get { controller.fetchRequest.sortDescriptors ?? [] } set { controller.fetchRequest.sortDescriptors = newValue.isEmpty ? nil : newValue fetch() } } internal func controllerDidChangeContent(_ controller: NSFetchedResultsController&lt;any NSFetchRequestResult&gt;) { refresh() } } Till this point, everything works fine. Then, I conformed my class to RandomAccessCollection, so I could use in a ForEach loop without having to access the results property. extension ObservableFetchRequest: @preconcurrency RandomAccessCollection, @preconcurrency MutableCollection { subscript(position: Index) -&gt; Result { get { results[position] } set { results[position] = newValue } } public var endIndex: Index { results.endIndex } public var indices: Indices { results.indices } public var startIndex: Index { results.startIndex } public func distance(from start: Index, to end: Index) -&gt; Int { results.distance(from: start, to: end) } public func index(_ i: Index, offsetBy distance: Int) -&gt; Index { results.index(i, offsetBy: distance) } public func index(_ i: Index, offsetBy distance: Int, limitedBy limit: Index) -&gt; Index? { results.index(i, offsetBy: distance, limitedBy: limit) } public func index(after i: Index) -&gt; Index { results.index(after: i) } public func index(before i: Index) -&gt; Index { results.index(before: i) } public typealias Element = Result public typealias Index = Int } The issue is, when I update the ObservableFetchRequest predicate while searching, it causes a Index out of range error in the Collection subscript because the ForEach loop (or a List loop) access a old version of the array when the item property is optional. List(request, selection: $selection) { item in VStack(alignment: .leading) { Text(item.content) if let information = item.information { // here's the issue, if I leave this out, everything works Text(information) .font(.callout) .foregroundStyle(.secondary) } } .tag(item.id) .contextMenu { if Item.self is Client.Type { Button("Editar") { openWindow(ClientView(client: item as! Client), id: item.id!) } } } } Is it some RandomAccessCollection issue or a SwiftUI bug?

On the macOS platform, I am planning to use the combination of NSFileProviders Custom Action and userInfo to implement custom context menus. However, the NSExtensions FileProviders Action Activation Rule in info does not work as long as it is related to userInfo. Are there any restrictions on the use of this userInfo? keepDownloaded is bool value

Hi all, I’m trying to understand SwiftData’s runtime semantics around optional to-many relationships, especially in the context of CloudKit-backed models. I ran into behavior that surprised me, and I’d like to confirm whether this is intended design or a potential issue / undocumented behavior. Minimal example import SwiftUI import SwiftData @Model class Node { var children: [Node]? = nil var parent: Node? = nil init(children: [Node]? = nil, parent: Node? = nil) { self.children = children self.parent = parent print(self.children == nil) } } struct ContentView: View { var body: some View { Button("Create") { _ = Node(children: nil) } } } Observed behavior If @Model is not used, children == nil prints true as expected. If @Model is used, children == nil prints false. Inspecting the macro expansion, it appears SwiftData initializes relationship storage using backing data placeholders and normalizes to-many relationships into empty collections at runtime, even when declared as optional. CloudKit context From the SwiftData + CloudKit documentation: “The iCloud servers don’t guarantee atomic processing of relationship changes, so CloudKit requires all relationships to be optional.” Because of this, modeling relationships as optional is required when syncing with CloudKit, even for to-many relationships. This is why I’m hesitant to simply switch the model to a non-optional [Node] = [], even though that would match the observed runtime behavior. Questions Is it intentional that optional to-many relationships in SwiftData are never nil at runtime, and instead materialize as empty collections? If so, is Optional<[Model]> effectively treated as [Model] for runtime access, despite being required for CloudKit compatibility? Is the defaultValue: nil in the generated Schema.PropertyMetadata intended only for schema/migration purposes rather than representing a possible runtime state? Is there a recommended modeling pattern for CloudKit-backed SwiftData models where relationships must be optional, but runtime semantics behave as non-optional? I’m mainly looking to ensure I’m aligning with SwiftData’s intended design and not relying on behavior that could change or break with CloudKit sync. Thanks in advance for any clarification!

What have people's experience with converting locally stored app data to a more browser based accessible format? Firebase seems expensive, Subabase a bit more challenging, and CloudKit too restrictive.

Starting 20th March 2025, I see an increase in bandwidth and latency for one of my CloudKit projects. I'm using NSPersistentCloudKitContainer to synchronise my data. I haven't changed any CloudKit scheme during that time but shipped an update. Since then, I reverted some changes from that update, which could have led to changes in the sync behaviour. Is anyone else seeing any issues? I would love to file a DTS and use one of my credits for that, but unfortunately, I can't because I cannot reproduce it with a demo project because I cannot travel back in time and check if it also has an increase in metrics during that time. Maybe an Apple engineer can green-light me filing a DTS request, please.

My app uses iCloud to let users sync their files via their private iCloud Drive, which does not use CloudKit. FileManager.default.url(forUbiquityContainerIdentifier: nil)?.appending(component: "Documents") I plan to transfer my app to another developer account, but I'm afraid it will affect the access of the app to the existing files in that folder. Apple documentation doesn't mention this case. Has anyone done this before and can confirm if the app will continue to work normally after transferring? Thanks

My client is using iCloud Mail with his custom domain and he communicated with many govt organizations which seem to all be using Barracuda Email Protection for their spam prevention. I have properly configured his SPF, DKIM & DMARC DNS records however his emails were still being rejected. (Email header below) I contacted Barracuda support with the email header and they replied saying that the emails were rejected becuase Apple Mail has missing PTR records. I have sent dozens of emails for testing and looking at all their headers I can see (ms-asmtp-me-k8s.p00.prod.me.com [17.57.154.37]) which does not have a PTR record. ----FULL EMAIL HEADER WITH 3RD PARTY DOMAINS REMOVED----- <recipient_email_address>: host d329469a.ess.barracudanetworks.com[209.222.82.255] said: 550 permanent failure for one or more recipients (recipient_email_address:blocked) (in reply to end of DATA command) Reporting-MTA: dns; p00-icloudmta-asmtp-us-west-3a-100-percent-10.p00-icloudmta-asmtp-vip.icloud-mail-production.svc.kube.us-west-3a.k8s.cloud.apple.com X-Postfix-Queue-ID: 8979C18013F8 X-Postfix-Sender: rfc822; sender_email_address Arrival-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:30:05 +0000 (UTC) Final-Recipient: rfc822; @****** Original-Recipient: rfc822;recipient_email_address Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Remote-MTA: dns; d329469a.ess.barracudanetworks.com Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 permanent failure for one or more recipients (recipient_email_address:blocked) Return-Path: <sender_email_address> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sender_domain; s=sig1; bh=CyUt/U7mIHwXB5OQctPjRH/OxLH7GsLR54JjGuRkj9Y=; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:To:x-icloud-hme; b=hwEbggsctiCRlMlEgovBTjB/0sPRCb2k+1wzHRZ2dZNrZdOqvFSNWU+Aki9Bl8nfv eEOoXz5qWxO2b2rEBl08lmRQ3hCyroayIn4keBRrgkxL1uu4zMTaDUHyau2vVnzC3h ZmwQtQxiu7QvTS/Sp8jjJ/niOPSzlfhphqMxnQAZi/jmJGcZPadT8K+7+PhRllVnI+ TElJarN1ORQu+CaPGhEs9/F7AIcjJNemnVg1cude7EUuO9va8ou49oFExWTLt7YSMl s+88hxxGu3GugD3eBnitzVo7s7/O9qkIbDUjk3w04/p/VOJ+35Mvi+v/zB9brpYwC1 B4dZP+AhwJDYA== Received: from smtpclient.apple (ms-asmtp-me-k8s.p00.prod.me.com [17.57.154.37]) by p00-icloudmta-asmtp-us-west-3a-100-percent-10.p00-icloudmta-asmtp-vip.icloud-mail-production.svc.kube.us-west-3a.k8s.cloud.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8979C18013F8; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:30:05 +0000 (UTC) From: Marcel Brunel <sender_email_address> Message-Id: <2E8D69EA-FCA6-4F5D-9D42-22A955C073F6@sender_domain> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F9AC7D29-8520-4B25-9362-950CB20ADEC5" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 (3826.400.131.1.6)) Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Brunel - 2024 taxes Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 07:29:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <SA0PR18MB350300DE7274C018F66EEA24F2D82@SA0PR18MB3503_namprd18_prod_outlook_com> To: Troy Womack <recipient_email_address> References: <SA0PR18MB350314D0B88E283C5C8E1BB6F2DE2@SA0PR18MB3503_namprd18_prod_outlook_com> <9B337A3E-D373-48C5-816F-C1884BDA6F42@sender_domain> <SA0PR18MB350341A7172E8632D018A910F2D82@SA0PR18MB3503_namprd18_prod_outlook_com> <SA0PR18MB350300DE7274C018F66EEA24F2D82@SA0PR18MB3503_namprd18_prod_outlook_com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.400.131.1.6) X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: uqebp2OIbPqBr3dYsAxdFVkCNbM5Cxyl X-Proofpoint-GUID: uqebp2OIbPqBr3dYsAxdFVkCNbM5Cxyl X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1093,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.68.34 definitions=2025-03-20_03,2025-03-19_01,2024-11-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1030 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2411120000 definitions=main-2503200077