Update to SpeziScheduler 1.0

[Supereg]

Update to SpeziScheduler 1.0

♻️ Current situation & Problem

This PR updates the SpeziTemplateApplication to use the new SpeziScheduler 1.0 release. This allow use to remove a lot of code that was previously necessary in the template application. Generally, we were able to greatly simplify the Scheduler setup.

⚙️ Release Notes

• Upgrade SpeziScheduler to 1.0

📚 Documentation

We updated the documentation to reflect the changes done to the template app.

✅ Testing

Existing UI test cases are reused.

📝 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.

[PSchmiedmayer]

Very cool to see the simplifications in here!

[PSchmiedmayer]

Thank you for working on this; happy to see this merged once we move to fully tagged version in the template app; we should also move Foundation, Accounts, and others to the tagged versions that are not betas 👍

[Supereg]

@PSchmiedmayer it seems like periphery doesn’t support swift 6? Or do you have a clue what the issue could be with the failing build?

[PSchmiedmayer]

Seem like this might be resolved soon: peripheryapp/periphery#813

Wondering we should temporarily remove CodeQL and Periphery and add an issue to re-add them once they support Xcode 16/Swift 6?

Or maybe make them non-required to merge a PR?

[Supereg]

Seem like this might be resolved soon: peripheryapp/periphery#813

Wondering we should temporarily remove CodeQL and Periphery and add an issue to re-add them once they support Xcode 16/Swift 6?

Or maybe make them non-required to merge a PR?

I think making Peripheral optional makes sense. They seem to be working on this. Not sure how long it takes for CodeQL to support Swift 6.

Other than that, this PR is ready to be merged 👍

[PSchmiedmayer]

Good point; I think we can make both optional for now but keep the actions in there.

I have asked for an estimate on the CodeQL Swift 6 adoption in their GitHub repo: github/codeql-action#2506.
There seems to be some ongoing work, I am sure they are working on supporting this in the near future: github/codeql#17699

It seems like some of the UI tests are still failing at this point; I would be fine with going ahead and merging the PR with CodeQL and Periphery failing for now (they will work again once support is added to these tools).

[Supereg]

Good point; I think we can make both optional for now but keep the actions in there.

I have asked for an estimate on the CodeQL Swift 6 adoption in their GitHub repo: github/codeql-action#2506. There seems to be some ongoing work, I am sure they are working on supporting this in the near future: github/codeql#17699

It seems like some of the UI tests are still failing at this point; I would be fine with going ahead and merging the PR with CodeQL and Periphery failing for now (they will work again once support is added to these tools).

Just found, that Periphery only fails because of the project format being Xcode 16.0. I just reverted to the Xcode 15.3 project format as it isn't really important and periphery works again. Now we are just waiting for CodeQL.

Another thing I noticed was that the Build and Test currently always choses the iPhone SE which makes some of our unit test fail as we would need to add additional behavior for scrolling. I tried to change the device to iPhone 16 Pro in Fastlane, however that didn't do anything. Do you know what the issue might be?

[PSchmiedmayer]

Very cool; that's great regarding Periphery!

Strange thing regarding the simulator; must be related to what simulators are installed on the runners. I thought all of them should be installed, but there might be a mismatch ...
I will take a look at this 👍

[PSchmiedmayer]

@Supereg I updated some of our agents and the builds seem to run now; just seems to be a UI testing issue with our license test that would stop us from merging the PR 👍

[Supereg]

@Supereg I updated some of our agents and the builds seem to run now; just seems to be a UI testing issue with our license test that would stop us from merging the PR 👍

Great news. I’ll make sure to resolve that 👍

[PSchmiedmayer]

Thank you 🎉

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.65385% with 17 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 86.92%. Comparing base (bb810ce) to head (af6803f).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
TemplateApplication/Schedule/EventView.swift	53.34%	14 Missing ⚠️
TemplateApplication/Account/AccountSheet.swift	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...cation/Schedule/TemplateApplicationScheduler.swift	93.34%	1 Missing ⚠️
...plateApplication/TemplateApplicationStandard.swift	66.67%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #84      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.44%   86.92%   +5.48%     
==========================================
  Files          24       21       -3     
  Lines         792      688     -104     
==========================================
- Hits          645      598      -47     
+ Misses        147       90      -57     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
TemplateApplication/Account/AccountButton.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...mplateApplication/Account/AccountSetupHeader.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
TemplateApplication/Contacts/Contacts.swift	91.84% <100.00%> (ø)
TemplateApplication/HomeView.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...lateApplication/Onboarding/AccountOnboarding.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...eApplication/Onboarding/HealthKitPermissions.swift	95.56% <100.00%> (ø)
...ateApplication/Onboarding/InterestingModules.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...plication/Onboarding/NotificationPermissions.swift	95.56% <100.00%> (ø)
...emplateApplication/Onboarding/OnboardingFlow.swift	97.50% <100.00%> (+0.28%)	⬆️
TemplateApplication/Onboarding/Welcome.swift	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 6 more

... and 2 files 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 bb810ce...af6803f. Read the comment docs.

[Supereg]

Thank you 🎉

Apparently, this was just a Springboard Reboot in the Simulator while executing this test case. Everything passes now.