Uncheck Run script: For install builds only #362
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
mauricecarrier7
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2023
vladimirfedorov
deleted the
task/remove-run-script-for-deployment-only
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What's this do?
Unchecks Run script: For install builds only in Palace target - Build Phase - Crashlytics script.
Why are we doing this? (w/ Notion link if applicable)
We got another missing dSYM message; committing this because this is the only difference between our script and one created from scratch.
How should this be tested? / Do these changes have associated tests?
No associated tests; fatal crash adds a crash record in Crashlytics as expected.
Dependencies for merging? Releasing to production?
No
Does this include changes that require a new Palace build for QA?
No (project configuration only)
Has the application documentation been updated for these changes?
No
Did someone actually run this code to verify it works?
@vladimirfedorov