[Billing Plans]: Only return intro offers on billing plan when fetching for a billing plan product by fire-at-will · Pull Request #6890 · RevenueCat/purchases-ios

fire-at-will · 2026-06-02T19:55:19Z

Description

This PR fixes a bug where we would return intro offers on the main StoreKit product for products represented by a billing plan. This meant that if an upFront variation of a product had an intro offer, but the monthly billing plan did not, StoreProduct.introductoryDiscount would return the intro offer, even though it isn't present on the monthly billing plan.

Testing

Manually verified the changes
Unable to write effective tests due to the SKTestSession bug with SKConfig files.

Note

Medium Risk
Changes purchase-facing offer and intro-eligibility behavior for billing-plan SK2 products on iOS 26.4+; wrong pricing-term selection would mislead paywalls but scope is narrow and guarded by compiler/OS availability.

Overview
Fixes billing-plan StoreProduct instances incorrectly surfacing introductory and promotional offers from the base StoreKit subscription when those offers exist only on other pricing terms (e.g. up-front vs monthly).

SK2StoreProduct now treats a product as a billing plan when compoundProductIdentifier includes a product plan id, caches the matching pricingTerms at init, and uses that slice for introductoryDiscount, discounts, and intro-eligibility checks instead of the subscription-level offers. Eligibility uses the renamed containsSubscriptionOfferTypeOnBillingPlan helper. Unit tests cover representsBillingPlan for with/without plan id.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 094317b. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

fire-at-will · 2026-06-02T19:56:55Z

        self.compoundProductIdentifier = compoundProductIdentifier
        self.installmentsInfo = installmentsInfo
+        #if compiler(>=6.3.2)
+        self._pricingTerms = Self.pricingTerms(for: sk2Product, installmentsInfo: installmentsInfo)


Extracted this out to be computed when the product is created so that we don't need to recompute it each time offers are loaded.

emerge-tools · 2026-06-02T19:57:37Z

⚠️ 3 new unused protocols, 4 builds increased size

Name	Version	Download	Change	Install	Change	Approval
BinarySizeTest com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.local-source	1.0 (1)	4.2 MB	⬆️ 23.4 kB (0.56%)	12.7 MB	⬆️ 52.3 kB (0.42%)	⏳ Needs approval
RevenueCat com.revenuecat.PaywallsTester	1.0 (1)	18.4 MB	⬆️ 61.1 kB (0.33%)	66.6 MB	⬆️ 231.4 kB (0.35%)	N/A
BinarySizeTest com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.cocoapods	1.0 (1)	6.4 MB	⬆️ 31.7 kB (0.5%)	28.1 MB	⬆️ 110.7 kB (0.4%)	⏳ Needs approval
BinarySizeTest com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.spm	1.0 (1)	4.3 MB	⬆️ 23.2 kB (0.54%)	11.1 MB	⬆️ 48.5 kB (0.44%)	⏳ Needs approval

BinarySizeTest 1.0 (1)
com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.local-source

⚠️ Found new unused protocol: WinBackEligibilityPricingTermsType
⚖️ Compare build
📦 Install build
⏱️ Analyze build performance

Total install size change: ⬆️ 52.3 kB (0.42%)
Total download size change: ⬆️ 23.4 kB (0.56%)

Largest size changes

Item	Install Size Change
DYLD.String Table	⬆️ 3.5 kB
📝 RevenueCat.WinBackOfferEligibilityCalculator.winbackOffersByID(fo...	⬆️ 2.2 kB
DYLD.Exports	⬆️ 1.7 kB
📝 RCInstallmentsInfo.Objc Metadata	⬆️ 1.6 kB
Swift.Sequence.compactMap	⬇️ -1.3 kB

View Treemap

RevenueCat 1.0 (1)
com.revenuecat.PaywallsTester

⚠️ Found new unused protocol: WinBackEligibilityPricingTermsType
⚖️ Compare build
⏱️ Analyze build performance

Total install size change: ⬆️ 231.4 kB (0.35%)
Total download size change: ⬆️ 61.1 kB (0.33%)

Largest size changes

Item	Install Size Change
DYLD.String Table	⬆️ 84.4 kB
📝 RCInstallmentsInfo.Objc Metadata	⬆️ 7.5 kB
Code Signature	⬆️ 5.5 kB
DYLD.Exports	⬆️ 4.9 kB
RevenueCat.ProductsManager.ProductsManager	⬆️ 4.4 kB

View Treemap

BinarySizeTest 1.0 (1)
com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.cocoapods

⚖️ Compare build
📦 Install build
⏱️ Analyze build performance

Total install size change: ⬆️ 110.7 kB (0.4%)
Total download size change: ⬆️ 31.7 kB (0.5%)

Largest size changes

Item	Install Size Change
DYLD.String Table	⬆️ 39.8 kB
Code Signature	⬆️ 2.5 kB
📝 RevenueCat.WinBackOfferEligibilityCalculator.winbackOffersByID(fo...	⬆️ 2.3 kB
DYLD.Exports	⬆️ 1.6 kB
📝 RCInstallmentsInfo.Objc Metadata	⬆️ 1.6 kB

View Treemap

BinarySizeTest 1.0 (1)
com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.spm

⚠️ Found new unused protocol: WinBackEligibilityPricingTermsType
⚖️ Compare build
📦 Install build
⏱️ Analyze build performance

Total install size change: ⬆️ 48.5 kB (0.44%)
Total download size change: ⬆️ 23.2 kB (0.54%)

Largest size changes

Item	Install Size Change
📝 RevenueCat.WinBackOfferEligibilityCalculator.winbackOffersByID(fo...	⬆️ 2.2 kB
DYLD.Exports	⬆️ 1.7 kB
📝 RCInstallmentsInfo.Objc Metadata	⬆️ 1.6 kB
Swift.Sequence.compactMap	⬇️ -1.3 kB
Strings.Unmapped	⬆️ 1.2 kB

View Treemap

🛸 Powered by Emerge Tools

Comment trigger: Size diff threshold of 100.00kB exceeded

fire-at-will · 2026-06-02T19:58:17Z

-    func contains(
-        subscriptionOfferType: StoreKit.Product.SubscriptionOffer.OfferType,
-        on billingPlanType: BillingPlanType
+    func containsSubscriptionOfferTypeOnBillingPlan(


Since we now scope the SK2Product to just one billing plan, the way the method was structured previously doesn't really make sense anymore. Updated it to check for an offer on the pricing terms contained in the product!

rickvdl

Nice! Couple of questions mainly :)

rickvdl · 2026-06-03T05:39:37Z

+                .first
+                .flatMap { StoreProductDiscount(sk2Discount: $0, currencyCode: self.currencyCode) }
+        } else {
+            return introductoryDiscountOnProduct()


As you mentioned we probably can’t unit test the billing-plan support through SKTestSession, but could we at least test the introductoryDiscountOnProduct() branches of this getter?

Yes! Luckily, this path is already covered by existing tests:

StoreProductTests.testSk2DetailsWrapsCorrectly() fetches a StoreKit 2 product with an intro offer from a SKConfig file and verifies the intro offer's contents. This exercises the plain introductoryDiscountOnProduct() branch of the getter since it doesn't have a billing plan on it

rickvdl · 2026-06-03T06:03:40Z

-                .subscription?
-                .pricingTerms
-                .first(where: { $0.billingPlanType == billingPlan.skBillingPlanType })
+        if self.compoundProductIdentifier.productPlanIdentifier != nil,


It took me a bit (without having all the context) to understand this line, and it’s used in a couple of places, would it make sense to extract it to a helper like

/// Whether this product represents a specific billing plan rather than the base product. var representsBillingPlan: Bool { self.compoundProductIdentifier.productPlanIdentifier != nil }

Love this! Good to not repeat yourself, and it definitely makes things easier to read. Added the computed property + tests and switched over all of those calls in 094317b

rickvdl · 2026-06-03T06:06:52Z


        #if compiler(>=6.3.2)
-        if let installmentsInfo = sk2StoreProduct.installmentsInfo,
+        if sk2StoreProduct.installmentsInfo != nil,


Could it (theoretically) be that we’re divergenging here, since in other places we’re checking for self.compoundProductIdentifier.productPlanIdentifier != nil? Should we combine these checks just to be safe?

In practice, probably not, but I think it still makes sense to standardize how we're computing this. In 094317b, I switched this to use our new SK2StoreProduct. representsBillingPlan instead :)

rickvdl

Just one question; would it make sense to (even thought they won't work) already write and include the SK tests so that they'll either succeed or gain our attention once the Xcode bug is resolved like Antonio suggested over Slack?

fire-at-will · 2026-06-03T14:46:32Z

@rickvdl Yeah, I think we should! I'm going to go ahead and merge this into the dev branch and then will create a new PR going into the dev branch with several tests backed by SKConfig files

only return intro offers on billing plan when one is used

255ca55

fire-at-will requested a review from a team as a code owner June 2, 2026 19:55

fire-at-will added the pr:fix A bug fix label Jun 2, 2026

fire-at-will changed the title ~~only return intro offers on billing plan when one is used~~ [Billing Plans]: Only return intro offers on billing plan when fetching for a billing plan product Jun 2, 2026

fire-at-will commented Jun 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

fire-at-will requested a review from ajpallares June 2, 2026 20:43

rickvdl reviewed Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

simplify logic with representsBillingPlan

094317b

fire-at-will requested a review from rickvdl June 3, 2026 11:38

rickvdl approved these changes Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

fire-at-will merged commit e39fcb4 into billing-plans-dev Jun 3, 2026
42 of 43 checks passed

fire-at-will deleted the fix-intro-offer branch June 3, 2026 14:46

Uh oh!

Conversation

fire-at-will commented Jun 2, 2026 • edited by cursor Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Testing

Uh oh!

fire-at-will Jun 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

emerge-tools Bot commented Jun 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

⚠️ 3 new unused protocols, 4 builds increased size

BinarySizeTest 1.0 (1)com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.local-source

RevenueCat 1.0 (1)com.revenuecat.PaywallsTester

BinarySizeTest 1.0 (1)com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.cocoapods

BinarySizeTest 1.0 (1)com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.spm

Uh oh!

fire-at-will Jun 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rickvdl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rickvdl Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fire-at-will Jun 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rickvdl Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fire-at-will Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rickvdl Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fire-at-will Jun 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rickvdl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fire-at-will commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

fire-at-will commented Jun 2, 2026 •

edited by cursor Bot

Loading

emerge-tools Bot commented Jun 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

BinarySizeTest 1.0 (1)
com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.local-source

RevenueCat 1.0 (1)
com.revenuecat.PaywallsTester

BinarySizeTest 1.0 (1)
com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.cocoapods

BinarySizeTest 1.0 (1)
com.revenuecat.binary-size-test.spm

fire-at-will Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading