1.0 compatibility for share operator #369

stefanomondino · 2025-09-22T22:16:25Z

fixes: #367

As discussed in the issue with @FranzBusch, this is an attempt to allow the new share operator to be available on older Apple platforms (before iOS 18.0 and similar), also known as 1.0 compatibility.

Note: when referring to iOS *** I mean of course all the Apple platforms released in the same year

This comes with a couple of tradeoffs

Mutex had to be replaced by ManagedCriticalState, as it's not available on 1.0
~~Failure generic type for errors had to be replaced with a non-generic Swift.Error type.~~
(really minor in my opinion): tests were not compiling on iOS simulators via Xcode with the .milliseconds(10) definitions (iOS 15.0 min compatibility), and I had to switch to nanoseconds. Using older iOS versions was the quickest thing to do on my end to test this scenario.

When ran on iOS 17.5 unfortunately ManagedCriticalState.withLock is crashing for some unknown-to-me reason - I know @phausler already encountered this and I didn't fully understand if there's a possible alternative solution / workaround or not.

I'm opening this here as a starting point.

Also, I was thinking if something this backport of Mutex could help, in terms of approach:
This is only iOS 16.0+ compatible (not 13.0) but this would be a huge step forward for us developers, since it's way easier to have business direction to accept 16.0 as minimum support, compared to 18.0.

This would probably require the entire library to rename 1.1 into 1.2, having 1.1 to be "intermediately" compatible with iOS 16.0 and 1.2 starting from 18.0 - I perfectly understand this is a huge change but I really think that including share (at least this single one!) it's critical for this package adoption.

UPDATE:
Requirements are

When using the API in 6.2 it must support proper typed throws
When using the API in pre 6.2 it must not be unconditionally always throwing the existental any Error aka Error type
When using the API in 6.2 it must funnel through the isolated variation (that is a huge performance hit if not)
the versioning of the framework must be 1.1 (if we land this the versioning will then be bumped beyond when requiring newer things); effectively we would be changing the baseline requirements of 1.1 to be a older OS release requirement than the just newly released macOS/iOS etc and 1.2 would then likely be for those requirements.

Additional tasks that would be extra bonus round stuff:

Updates to the pitch/documentation
Example code in the documentation showing how it is expected to work on pre 6.2

Akazm · 2025-09-30T21:05:49Z

As someone who had quite some issues with Swift stdlibs version constraints (Apple really has a habit of not caring at all, unfortunately), from my experience, packages like this solve this issue quite well:

https://github.com/swhitty/swift-mutex

It's comparable to the backport you mentioned in your Pull Request, but more mature.

stefanomondino · 2025-10-06T09:42:19Z

@Akazm I think it's the same (I found it in the one you mentioned at the bottom of the readme, the author is the same).
I've mentioned the gist and not the entire library because it might be easier to integrate in a library like async-algorithms avoiding an explicit third party SPM dependency.

pyrtsa

Nice work, would be really useful to have share available for a wide range of OS versions!

Here's a proposed fix for the withLock crash, and a few indent corrections.

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

pyrtsa

More indentation corrections. 🤔

We'd avoid these if the repo had an .editorconfig file something like:

root = true

[*]
end_of_line = lf
indent_size = 2
indent_style = space
insert_final_newline = true

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

Co-authored-by: Pyry Jahkola <[email protected]>

stefanomondino · 2025-10-07T20:10:24Z

thanks to @pyrtsa the branch is now passing tests properly on my end.
Waiting for @phausler and @FranzBusch feedback.

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

Co-authored-by: Pyry Jahkola <[email protected]>

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestShare.swift

pyrtsa

Now the only thing I wonder is whether we can keep typed throws interface also included under @available(macOS 15.0, iOS 18.0, watchOS 11.0, tvOS 18.0, visionOS 2.0, *)?

There are a few stored properties making it a bit tricky, but I don't yet think it's impossible.

phausler · 2025-10-09T17:10:51Z

Just as a heads up, I haven't brushed over this - the implications here are pretty steep so this needs to be carefully considered. Backporting has some severe implications not just to the issues that already are addressed but to the process this package takes beyond just it being hosted here.

long/short please have patience with me while I check on a ton of other stuff (and note - those external requirements may have fallout to the proposed alternative here).

phausler · 2025-10-09T17:12:09Z

One thought that might have a better pan-out is leaving this as 1.1 but then altering 1.1 to have an earlier OS requirement and then posing a 1.2 for other algorithms.

ph1ps · 2025-10-10T04:40:26Z

Having this AsyncSequence throw unconditionally is a deal breaker of this backport IMO.

You would probably need some rethrows trickery to get this working. If this doesn't work I feel like the pitch needs to be updated as well and point that out.

phausler · 2025-10-10T19:09:13Z

@stefanomondino per the general concept of back porting share;

Here are the requirements to satisfy -

When using the API in 6.2 it must support proper typed throws
When using the API in pre 6.2 it must not be unconditionally always throwing the existental any Error aka Error type
When using the API in 6.2 it must funnel through the isolated variation (that is a huge performance hit if not)
the versioning of the framework must be 1.1 (if we land this the versioning will then be bumped beyond when requiring newer things); effectively we would be changing the baseline requirements of 1.1 to be a older OS release requirement than the just newly released macOS/iOS etc and 1.2 would then likely be for those requirements.

As I discuss more with the parties this potentially impacts this list may grow a bit - but that is a first blush at what would be required to do what you want.

@ph1ps I claim that any destruction of the Never vs any Error throwing case is a non starter for pretty much all algorithms. We have focused a lot of effort to ensure that any non throwing sequence should never require a try for iteration. Any place that doesn't happen it is a destruction of user expectation - so thank you for catching that nuance.

Generally speaking for anyone looking in the future for back ports of things - the bar is REALLY high in pretty much all maintained packages so this should NOT be viewed as a precedent to justify other back ports - they each have to be considered in their own merit, impact, and fallout (it really does pose a lot of complications for maintaining and delivering packages that are blessed as part of the Apple open source side of things and likewise for the Swift core libraries and even more so for the Swift compiler set of targets).

phausler · 2025-10-10T19:12:00Z

Additional tasks that would be extra bonus round stuff:

Updates to the pitch/documentation
Example code in the documentation showing how it is expected to work on pre 6.2

These are not hard requirements for the author to specifically do but anyone who can pitch in that will definitely make my life easier ;)

stefanomondino · 2025-10-11T14:01:23Z

Hello, I've tried to update this concept with your suggestions (I completely missed the "forced throw" thing, thank you for catching it).

I've been diving into the matter of this "backportable Failure" for a while, ending up on the forums where the idea seems to be to add a second protocol with a "new" Failure associatedtype. There seems to be some concerns by Slava Pestov about mangled names in distributed libraries (our case), but this should not be our case because - if I understood it correctly - (AsyncAlgorithms,FailableAsyncSequence.Failure) will always follow (_Concurrency,AsyncSequence.Failure) in lexicographic order.

Also, I've set 1.1 to older iOS versions so that we could run tests in both scenarios (i've tried iOS 17.5 and macos 15, they are both working).

Any feedback is welcomed. Thanks.

stefanomondino · 2025-10-11T14:14:20Z

Also, on top of that, I don't think we are going to need anything additional documentation for older versions, because it will work as expected - if the underlying sequence never throws, the .share()version won't as well. Otherwise, as with all other sequences, any Errorwill be thrown.

pyrtsa · 2025-10-11T14:47:23Z

I think we can conditionally make it support typed throws, not just rethrows. Got a draft implementation working, but AFK right now. Will check back later tonight.

stefanomondino · 2025-10-11T17:07:17Z

I think I've found a way as you said, but the iOS 17 crash is back. Will try again later

- attempt to throw errors properly

stefanomondino · 2025-10-11T21:46:19Z

"Hic sunt leones" - at least for me.
I've created 1.2 version to allow 1.1 to be ported until ios 16 etc.
I understood where I was failing with the typed error and got it working, but now I'm constantly hitting a runtime error probably related to the missing next() declaration with isolation context on the AsyncIterator when I run tests on iOS 17.5 (it's available via extension only on 1.2).

If I move the next() method inside 1.1 everything works as expected but we lose the typed error on 1.2 (all errors becomes any Error)
At least it's better than forcing non-throwing sequences to handle non-existing errors like before, but still - if the point is to keep typed errors then we need something different.

pyrtsa · 2025-10-15T11:15:21Z

@stefanomondino Took a bit longer than I thought to get things to a good shape with a passing unit test, diff to main here: main...pyrtsa:swift-async-algorithms:feature/share-backwards-compatibility.

It's 2 commits behind your current branch because it seems we can reasonably support typed throws by keeping the inner implementation at any Error while forcing the type at the API boundary. This compiles and passes tests on all destinations I could access right now (latest macOS, iOS 15…26).

Here are to @phausler's requests:

Here are the requirements to satisfy -

When using the API in 6.2 it must support proper typed throws

Done. There is also a new test which verifies at compile time and run time that the error type is forwarded correctly. (Would've used #366 here if merged!)

Besides, the test was surprisingly hard to write in a way which doesn't coerce the error type to any Error apparently due to shortcomings in compiler support for typed throws. That's why you see a local helper function operation(): inlining its logic in the unstructured Task fails to compile with a type error!

When using the API in pre 6.2 it must not be unconditionally always throwing the existental any Error aka Error type

When using the API in 6.2 it must funnel through the isolated variation (that is a huge performance hit if not)

I believe these two work correctly now. Where only next() is available, it'll be rethrows. Otherwise, next(isolation:) is preferred by the compiler, passing the isolation actor appropriately.

the versioning of the framework must be 1.1 (if we land this the versioning will then be bumped beyond when requiring newer things); effectively we would be changing the baseline requirements of 1.1 to be a older OS release requirement than the just newly released macOS/iOS etc and 1.2 would then likely be for those requirements.

I did this as well now, and I hope I got it right. Ultimately, AsyncAlgorithms 1.1 ended up looking just like AsyncAlgorithms 1.0, only listing visionOS 1.0 at the end of the list is possible. But given that there seems to be virtually no difference, I'm not sure why this was necessary.

Updates to the pitch/documentation

Example code in the documentation showing how it is expected to work on pre 6.2

These two remain to be done. Can look into it, if you're fine with the general direction.

Lastly, I ended up dropping the AsyncIterator: SendableMetatype requirements, as it complicated the use of the feature in tests and seemed to make no difference to the 6.2 compiler. Please let me know if that wasn't right!

stefanomondino · 2025-10-15T12:29:11Z

@pyrtsa that's brilliant, I didn't think of this hack! I've just tried it on my current branch and it's properly working.
I already had a custom "always failing" sequence and I've moved it into the test utilities folder Support folder to be used.

I'm working on the 1.0 / 1.1 / 1.2 thing because the day I tried I had issues without 1.1 being declared, but now it seems to be worthless, you are right.

stefanomondino · 2025-10-15T12:43:49Z

@pyrtsa if I set my branch to 1.0 (iOS 13.0 etc) I get a runtime crash on one of the tests (I think the one @phausler was talking about in the original issue, with empty consumers).
However this doesn't happen if I lower 1.1 to be 14.0 (and similar) compatible, which seems a perfect compromise to me.

pyrtsa · 2025-10-15T12:47:58Z

However this doesn't happen if I lower 1.1 to be 14.0 (and similar) compatible, which seems a perfect compromise to me.

Great! I only had iOS 15.5 runtime available as the lowest end, so only assumed 13 and 14 would work alike. But 13 seems obsolete to me, and setting AsyncSequence 1.1 to start from 14.0 seems perfect to me too! (Need to do the same treatment to the other OS's as well.)

That'll also mean we do indeed need AsyncSequence 1.1 availability between 1.0 and 1.2.

Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestShare.swift

Co-authored-by: Pyry Jahkola <[email protected]>

stefanomondino · 2025-10-15T13:44:54Z

BTW - I didn't merge your branch into mine because I thought that having 1.1 and 1.2 was more of a requirement, as stated by Philippe. I just took your suggestion and adapted to my existing changes.
The point: credits for this (if we land this) should definetly go to you, but it's untracked and I didn't want to seem rude or disrespectful - just unexperienced when it comes to this kind of mixed contributions

pyrtsa · 2025-10-15T14:04:17Z

Thanks for mentioning, perfectly fine by that! ☺️ Besides, I think your test_share_rethrows_failure_type_without_falling_back_to_any_error is much better at succinctly testing the typed throws behaviour!

phausler · 2025-10-15T20:14:06Z

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/Shims.swift

+//
+// This source file is part of the Swift Async Algorithms open source project
+//
+// Copyright (c) 2022 Apple Inc. and the Swift project authors


Suggested change

// Copyright (c) 2022 Apple Inc. and the Swift project authors

// Copyright (c) 2025 Apple Inc. and the Swift project authors

There seems to be some other ones that I copy/pasta'd too .... oops...

phausler · 2025-10-15T20:16:58Z

Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/Support/FailingSequence.swift

+//  swift-async-algorithms
+//
+//  Created by Stefano Mondino on 15/10/25.
+//


This should also be updated to the right attribution header:

//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// // // This source file is part of the Swift Async Algorithms open source project // // Copyright (c) 2025 Apple Inc. and the Swift project authors // Licensed under Apache License v2.0 with Runtime Library Exception // // See https://swift.org/LICENSE.txt for license information // //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//

phausler · 2025-10-15T20:18:35Z

Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestShare.swift

        results1.withLock { $0.append(value) }
        // Add some delay to consumer 1
-        try? await Task.sleep(for: .milliseconds(1))
+        try? await Task.sleep(nanoseconds: 1_000_000)


It might be worthwhile to keep the test suite requiring a higher version for ease of deployment (and validating the newer versions folks will in time all be using) and it avoids needing to use crusty old versions of the sleep method

@phausler I think it depends on how the general workflow for testing is set up. I think it's useful being able to run tests on legacy platforms if we support them because we found critical issues and crashes there.

I've set AsyncAlgorithms 1.1 to be compatible with iOS 14.0 because - thanks to the tests being able to run there - I discovered issues on iOS 13.0.
I'll create a backportable local extension on Task to avoid the nanoseconds initializer.

phausler · 2025-10-15T20:19:29Z

Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestShare.swift

+        XCTAssertEqual(error, TestError.failure)
+      }
+    } else {
+      throw XCTSkip("This test is not available before 1.2")


I don't think this can actually hit right?

It certainly can! The overall test suite of this file now passes tests on OS versions as old as iOS 14; it's just this single test case exercising typed throws which really requires iOS 18 or similar, and skipped otherwise.

The issue is that XCTest does not support availability macro directly on the function due to how tests are automatically "expanded" from the suite. This means that running this test on older platforms would result in an empty one.
It felt more appropriate to expose it as a skipped test, but it's not a big deal to remove it

(Just a style comment, I think this is cleaner if expressed as guard #available(...) else { throw ... } at the start of the test function.)

phausler · 2025-10-15T20:21:26Z

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

  //   **Cleanup**: Automatically unregisters and cancels pending operations on deinit
  final class Side {
+    // Due to a runtime crash in 1.0 compatible versions, it's not possible to handle
+    // a generic failure constrained to Base.Failure. We handle inner failure with a `any Error`


Suggested change

// a generic failure constrained to Base.Failure. We handle inner failure with a �`any Error`

// a generic failure constrained to Base.Failure. We handle inner failure with a `any Error`

jeffhodsdon · 2025-10-16T07:20:23Z

Generally speaking for anyone looking in the future for back ports of things - the bar is REALLY high in pretty much all maintained packages so this should NOT be viewed as a precedent to justify other back ports - they each have to be considered in their own merit, impact, and fallout (it really does pose a lot of complications for maintaining and delivering packages that are blessed as part of the Apple open source side of things and likewise for the Swift core libraries and even more so for the Swift compiler set of targets).

Do we think the swiftlang organization would be a better home for this project? I'm not seeing much Apple resources and time being allocated here.

…portable shorthand without nanoseconds

Basic setup to compile below iOS 18.0 and similar

42950e0

pyrtsa reviewed Oct 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pyrtsa reviewed Oct 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

stefanomondino and others added 6 commits October 7, 2025 21:59

Update Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

8c13d4b

Co-authored-by: Pyry Jahkola <[email protected]>

Update Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

3c07b64

Co-authored-by: Pyry Jahkola <[email protected]>

Update Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

22bb49e

Co-authored-by: Pyry Jahkola <[email protected]>

Update Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

474e461

Co-authored-by: Pyry Jahkola <[email protected]>

Update Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

7d7ee6f

Co-authored-by: Pyry Jahkola <[email protected]>

fix: crash on <ios 18

1b6b715

stefanomondino changed the title ~~[WIP] 1.0 compatibility for share operator~~ 1.0 compatibility for share operator Oct 7, 2025

stefanomondino requested a review from pyrtsa October 7, 2025 20:10

pyrtsa reviewed Oct 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift

1626281

Co-authored-by: Pyry Jahkola <[email protected]>

pyrtsa reviewed Oct 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Sources/AsyncAlgorithms/AsyncShareSequence.swift Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pyrtsa reviewed Oct 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestShare.swift Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix: indentation issues

38e635e

pyrtsa reviewed Oct 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

fix: restore generic Failure

6b1b6f5

- enable 1.2 and change 1.1 with backwards compatibility to iOS 16

c02d4ed

- attempt to throw errors properly

fix: crash on pre 1.2

aa7a6c5

refactor 1.1 to go back until ios 14.0 and similar

7c9dba7

pyrtsa reviewed Oct 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestShare.swift Show resolved Hide resolved

Update Tests/AsyncAlgorithmsTests/TestShare.swift

81493be

Co-authored-by: Pyry Jahkola <[email protected]>

phausler reviewed Oct 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

fix copyrights, remove typos, change sleep to a custom shorthand back…

4345c0d

…portable shorthand without nanoseconds

	// Copyright (c) 2022 Apple Inc. and the Swift project authors
	// Copyright (c) 2025 Apple Inc. and the Swift project authors

	// a generic failure constrained to Base.Failure. We handle inner failure with a �`any Error`
	// a generic failure constrained to Base.Failure. We handle inner failure with a `any Error`

1.0 compatibility for share operator #369

Are you sure you want to change the base?

1.0 compatibility for share operator #369

Conversation

stefanomondino commented Sep 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Akazm commented Sep 30, 2025

Uh oh!

stefanomondino commented Oct 6, 2025

Uh oh!

pyrtsa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pyrtsa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

stefanomondino commented Oct 7, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pyrtsa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

phausler commented Oct 9, 2025

Uh oh!

phausler commented Oct 9, 2025

Uh oh!

ph1ps commented Oct 10, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

phausler commented Oct 10, 2025

Uh oh!

phausler commented Oct 10, 2025

Uh oh!

stefanomondino commented Oct 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

stefanomondino commented Oct 11, 2025

Uh oh!

pyrtsa commented Oct 11, 2025

Uh oh!

stefanomondino commented Oct 11, 2025

Uh oh!

stefanomondino commented Oct 11, 2025

Uh oh!

pyrtsa commented Oct 15, 2025

Uh oh!

stefanomondino commented Oct 15, 2025

Uh oh!

stefanomondino commented Oct 15, 2025

Uh oh!

pyrtsa commented Oct 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

stefanomondino commented Oct 15, 2025

Uh oh!

pyrtsa commented Oct 15, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

stefanomondino commented Sep 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

ph1ps commented Oct 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

stefanomondino commented Oct 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

pyrtsa commented Oct 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading