Too many permissions for AppStore

[MaeseppTarvo]

Hey. If you are using PermissionScope with Xcode 8 GM and try to upload it to appstore you are gonna get errors like:

This app attempts to access privacy-sensitive data without a usage description. The app's Info.plist must contain an NSContactsUsageDescription key with a string value explaining to the user how the app uses this data.

This app attempts to access privacy-sensitive data without a usage description. The app's Info.plist must contain an NSCalendarsUsageDescription key with a string value explaining to the user how the app uses this data.

This app attempts to access privacy-sensitive data without a usage description. The app's Info.plist must contain an NSBluetoothPeripheralUsageDescription key with a string value explaining to the user how the app uses this data.

This app attempts to access privacy-sensitive data without a usage description. The app's Info.plist must contain an NSMicrophoneUsageDescription key with a string value explaining to the user how the app uses this data.

This app attempts to access privacy-sensitive data without a usage description. The app's Info.plist must contain an NSMotionUsageDescription key with a string value explaining to the user how the app uses this data.

For some reason it thinks that I ask all those permissions. I even do not use any of these. Just the notification one.

[nickoneill]

Thanks @MaeseppTarvo, I'll add this to the readme. At the very least you should be able to add those string values and get past submission.

@bre7 Perhaps it's really time to do subspecs for each permission :/ Not sure how Carthage could work similarly.

[bre7]

One subspec per permission seems....too much. Isn't there a way to use weak linking like in ObjC ?

[sansari]

+1, seeing this as well.

Feels really weird to be adding usage descriptions for permissions we don't even use (Apple is already so picky about exactly how one uses different capabilities/permissions, so it makes me a bit nervous to "declare" we're using all of these).

[robbiet480]

👍 Also just had a build rejected for the same reason.

[bre7]

For now I'd suggest forking and removing unused permissions (or editing the Pods project) 😞 Not sure if there's a perfect solution to these problem

[robbiet480]

Agree with @bre7. This feels pretty bad to add all these keys to my Info.plist, especially since i'm not using any of these. I think i'm going to remove PermissionScope for the time being until a fix can be determined.

@nickoneill I'd suggest putting a giant warning in the README. I have been waiting for my build for almost 2 hours and called Developer Support who also had no idea what was going on, and then thought to check my email which is when I found the problem.

[bre7]

There are some issues in SO like these:

[...] AdMob seems to have references to the Calendar so an app I have which uses ads, and does not use the Calendar itself, can't be submitted. Thanks Google!

A possible "solution" (albeit hacky) would be to enter all the required keys in Info.plist (it's even suggested by AdMob's team: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/google-admob-ads-sdk/UmeVUDrcDaw/HIXR0kjUAgAJ)

[robbiet480]

If anyone needs it, I pushed a branch that's compatible with Swift 3/iOS 10 and uses the new UserNotifications framework. It only supports notifications and location. It's available here.

[h3smith]

While more work, perhaps the correct solution is a core cocoapod, with the logic for each individual permission in its own pod. Or, while hacky if you are building from source there are always preprocessor flags you could wrap around each permission.

[yuvalt]

I know it won't be the prettiest or swift friendly option -- but what about using preprocessor flag per type of permission and then having to include the list of preprocessors in the project file?

[nickoneill]

@yuvalt We're not even sure what's causing the requirement at the moment - is it just linking the frameworks or the presence of the code itself? Waiting for more information right now.

[robbiet480]

@nickoneill It's the presence of the code itself. I didn't remove any framework links and my builds passed. I bet that Apple is looking for the import statement or specific classes.

[bre7]

Yeah. The frameworks are being linked because of the import statements.

[robbiet480]

Shows how new I am to Swift 😿. Sorry @nickoneill

[nickoneill]

I'm filing a code-level support request in an attempt to get more information on the issue.

[MaeseppTarvo]

I think the problem is actually much Apple sided. I think that if you have whatever piece of line about some permission inside code it just detects it and check if it is allowed. So I think there is nothing to do.

[h3smith]

They are performing static analysis and finding the calls for the specific permissions and noticing the lack of the description in the plist file. Nothing more than that and you aren't going to get around it.

[yuvalt]

That's why I think preprocessing is the only way to go (need to be verified). So we can add a preprocessor definition like PS_INDIVIDUAL_PERMISSIONS and then PS_LOCATION, PS_CONTACTS etc... this way we can make sure that only the relevant code gets compiled. I can implement it quickly if people think it's the right approach.

[emreavsar]

also looking for a fix.

[nickoneill]

@yuvalt I'm interested in this approach but wary of asking people to create flags in build settings because it's not always straightforward. Can you think of another way to turn preprocessor definitions on and off?

@emreavsar Your best bet in the short term is adding those plist items for the permissions that you're not using. Users will never see them until they're requested (which they never are) so no impact on your app.

[emreavsar]

@nickoneill thanks for the quick answer. Yep this looks like the quick-fix for the moment. Are you 100% sure that they're not listed somewhere but only requesting? (App Store Entry, Settings etc.)?

Thanks anyway. Looking for the update mate!

[nickoneill]

They're not listed in the app settings until they're requested. The code hasn't changed, it's strictly a change in Apple's review process.

[yuvalt]

@nickoneill I hear you, but that's the only thing I could think of. The user will need to define it under Build Settings -> Swift Compiler -> Custom Flags (it's not under Basic but rather under All). Painful. Anyway, all the could be optional and people can still just include all the descriptions in their Info.plist or just opt to use this. I'll be happy to issue a pull-request for this, if you're interested.

[h3smith]

The only solution is that preprocessor flags have to be defined for the build process. There really isn't a way around it. Sadly you can't #define at the top of the .swift file because that would take care of it and make it easier.

But, it'll allow you to pick and choose which support you want which could be seen as a huge plus instead of having everything in there...

[nickoneill]

Hey friends, I got a suggested fix from Apple support, importing the framework is what causes the detection for API usage so give me your thoughts on this: each permission will have a single framework associated with it and you would have to import the framework specific to the permission that you're requesting, such as import PermissionScopeCamera, import PermissionScopeNotification, etc.

[robbiet480]

@nickoneill What would the Podfile look like in that case?

[basememara]

Adding the privacy entries in the plist is definitely not a long-term solution. You would be misrepresenting your app in some way and you'll have more explaining to do with Apple. Also down the road who knows what those will be used for (maybe a popup like Android).

I totally support using compiler flags, the code isn't in the compilation this way.

Segmenting the code seems overkill for a relatively small lib. However, like @h3smith mentioned, there can be a core dependency and each permission would be a new, stand-alone library. I can see grabbing only notifications and bluetooth libs for example and leaving the rest; PermissionScope can be more of a suite of libs.

[Panajev]

Sent from my iPhone

On 21 Sep 2016, at 02:20, Basem Emara [email protected] wrote:

Adding the privacy entries in the plist is definitely not a long-term solution. You would be misrepresenting your app in some way and you'll have more explaining to do with Apple. Also down the road who knows what those will be used for (maybe a popup like Android).

I totally support using compiler flags, the code isn't in the compilation this way.

Segmenting the code seems overkill for a relatively small lib. However, like @h3smith mentioned, there can be a core dependency and each permission would be a new, stand-alone library. I can see grabbing only notifications and bluetooth libs for example and leaving the rest; PermissionScope can be more of a suite of libs.

+1

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[ValiDraganescu]

I added the requested descriptions in my plist but I still get the error after the app processing starts in iTunes Connect

[ValiDraganescu]

I think I've just found something interesting here. I added all the requested descriptions in my plist and still got rejected for the same thing. I removed PermissionScope from my pods and implemented my own permissions. Good thing it'a a new app and I only need location and camera access.

Now, I implemented the location and camera access but I also had the photos gallery description in the plist file, I archived and pushed the app to iTunes. Now guess what, iTunes is complaining about this exact not used feature saying :
The app's Info.plist must contain an NSPhotoLibraryUsageDescription key with a string value explaining to the user how the app uses this data.
But I'm sure it's there because I just put it there.
I removed that description from my plist file and I'm pushing to iTunes as I write this, I'll keep you posted with what happens next.

Later edit:
Nope, it's not that ....

[robbiet480]

@ValiDraganescu Is there another Pod that uses it? I had to really dig through all my Pods to find even the smallest mention of photos. Also, UIImagePicker will cause that error. I found UIImagePicker in PromiseKit as an example of unexpected libraries which may cause problems.

[seboslaw]

@ValiDraganescu are you using ReactiveCocoa? It also has a UIImagePicker binding that causes this rejection at the moment.

[ValiDraganescu]

@robbiet480, @seboslaw I am using UIImagePicker because I really need it :). I did all the setup, I added the description in the plist and still got the app rejected. I ended up removing my parts of my own code that was mentioning UIImagePicker and now the app has been approved. My app will not get public for a while now but still it would be great to test the camera functionality. I guess this is an iTunes bug or something, we should file a bug to Apple.

[nickoneill]

Yes @ValiDraganescu, you should file a radar. It appears your issue is not related to PermissionScope.

[Luccifer]

Hope I will not be rejected with so many permission descriptions in Info.plist.
Anybody success AppStore release with bag of premission descriptions?

[emobtech]

@Luccifer Just got an update approved with all those permission keys with generic placeholders. No comments from review team. Hopefully they fix it in future Xcode's versions.

[nickoneill]

Thanks for the followup @emobtech, we're working on a better solution for the future.

[Luccifer]

5 minutes ago they take my build for review as well, waiting for results, will update this comment later after their response/approve

[TomMajor]

Hello nickoneill and bre7,

I see my issue from last year made it to your readme :) #61

I am in need of a short term solution for submitting an app, I don't want to fill out all privacy entries as I feel this is the wrong way and might be suspicious. I just need camera and photo library.

What would be a recommend way to remove all unused permissions from your point of view?
Delete the imports statements in the two files
Permissions.swift
PermissionScope.swift
and then go thru each // MARK: section and remove it if not needed?
Will this work or is there more to keep an eye on?

Thanks,

[basememara]

If I may chime in, yes this is what I did. I deleted all the import statements and removed what couldn't compile anymore.

I only needed notifications so I adjusted the code accordingly and submitted it fine without all the privacy entries: https://github.com/basememara/PermissionScope/tree/feature/notifications_only

[nickoneill]

Thanks @basememara, that seems like the thing to do right now if you don't want to fill in the plist items for permissions you don't use. Working on an alternate method for import right now.

[TomMajor]

Thanks @basememara for the hints.
Once I commented out the imports and the //MARK sections I didn't need, it's pretty straightforward.
This way, only a few places are left where xcode complains.

Only two of them are really notable, one being the line

while self.waitingForBluetooth || self.waitingForMotion { }

where I was not really sure if just commenting it out would be ok, but I think so, and the other in

func statusForPermission(_ type: PermissionType, completion: statusRequestClosure) {

where I needed to add a default case

default:
  permissionStatus = .unknown

[bre7]

Flags+Subspecs solution used by ISHPermissionKit: https://github.com/iosphere/ISHPermissionKit/pull/80/files

[alanscarpa]

@bre7 This seems like a solid solution to the issue. I'd like to implement the same solution for this project and make a PR, unless @nickoneill you have an alternate solution in the works?

[h3smith]

We sort of "butchered" @nickoneill code to get the permission prompts working as we wanted. It was basically breaking each "permission set" into its own Framework. if you want to use "Camera" you had XYZCamera.framework and viola done.

[nickoneill]

That's the solution I think is best @h3smith, flags and subspecs seems a bit more complicated to use. @alanscarpa if you want to work on an approach, this is the right way to go.

[andrewkouri]

Any update on this?

[nickoneill]

Sorry @andrewkouri, I don't have the time to do this work myself at the moment. Happy to review a PR from you or @h3smith if you want to collaborate on the proposed solution.

[ghost]

I think I know the answer, but what's the status of this? I want to use PermissionScope in my project, but not if I have to include all of the parts in the Info.plist or if I have to fork the repo and edit files to just use the permissions I need.

If it sounds like I'm expecting someone to do it for me. I'm not. I just don't have the time to do the latter and I don't believe the former "solution" is viable.

[boywithk9]

@nickoneill Any update on this?

[nickoneill]

Nope, no plans to fix this issue at the moment. I would see if there's a fork that implements the change you wanted.

[jeffreyjackson]

@Luccifer did your app pass review with the extra unused description strings?
@alanscarpa looking forward to a PR to address the subspecs

cc @bobbyrehm