[CP-beta] Update iOS tools to fat binaries (#185868)#186063
Conversation
Updates iOS tools to a new path in GCS where they are built with both x86 and arm. On ARM Apple Silicon Macs, these will run natively without requiring Rosetta. Binaries are code-signed and fat as expected: ``` SHARD=verify_binaries_pre_codesigned bin/cache/dart-sdk/bin/dart dev/bots/test.dart ▌20:17:40▐ STARTING ANALYSIS ▌20:17:41▐ SHARD=verify_binaries_pre_codesigned ▌20:17:41▐ Running binaries codesign verification ▌20:18:30▐ Test successful. ``` Fixes flutter#121178 and flutter#185384 ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [AI contribution guidelines] and understand my responsibilities, or I am not using AI tools. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [x] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on [Discord]. If this change needs to override an active code freeze, provide a comment explaining why. The code freeze workflow can be overridden by code reviewers. See pinned issues for any active code freezes with guidance. **Note**: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of [Gemini Code Assist for GitHub](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed. <!-- Links --> [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [AI contribution guidelines]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#ai-contribution-guidelines [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md
|
This pull request was opened from and to a release candidate branch. This should only be done as part of the official Flutter release process. If you are attempting to make a regular contribution to the Flutter project, please close this PR and follow the instructions at Tree Hygiene for detailed instructions on contributing to Flutter. Reviewers: Use caution before merging pull requests to release branches. Ensure the proper procedure has been followed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request implements a verification step to ensure that binaries are fat binaries containing both x86_64 and arm64 architectures and updates the storage path for iOS USB artifacts. The review feedback identifies missing imports for the path, process, and meta packages required by the new code. Additionally, it points out a potential logic error where the architecture check could return false positives if the file path contains architecture strings, recommending the use of the -b flag with the file command to isolate the binary description.
| Future<void> verifyCodesignedTestRunner() async { | ||
| printProgress('${green}Running binaries codesign verification$reset'); | ||
| await runCommand('flutter', <String>[ | ||
| await runCommand(path.join(flutterRoot, 'bin', 'flutter'), <String>[ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The use of path.join requires the package:path/path.dart import, which appears to be missing from this file. Since this is a cherry-pick, please ensure that import 'package:path/path.dart' as path; is added to the top of the file to avoid a compilation error.
| Future<void> verifyFatBinaries( | ||
| String flutterRoot, { | ||
| @visibleForTesting ProcessManager processManager = const LocalProcessManager(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This function introduces dependencies on ProcessManager, LocalProcessManager (from package:process/process.dart), io.ProcessResult (from dart:io), and @visibleForTesting (from package:meta/meta.dart). Please ensure these packages are imported at the top of the file to avoid compilation errors.
|
|
||
| for (final binaryPath in fatBinaries) { | ||
| print('Verifying fat binary architectures for $binaryPath'); | ||
| final io.ProcessResult result = await processManager.run(<String>['file', binaryPath]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The file command output includes the file path by default. If the path contains the strings arm64 or x86_64 (which is likely given the directory structure change in flutter_cache.dart), the architecture check will produce false positives and pass even for thin binaries. Use the -b (brief) flag to omit the filename from the output and ensure the check only validates the binary description.
| final io.ProcessResult result = await processManager.run(<String>['file', binaryPath]); | |
| final io.ProcessResult result = await processManager.run(<String>['file', '-b', binaryPath]); |
| for (final binaryPath in fatBinaries) { | ||
| commandList.add( | ||
| FakeCommand( | ||
| command: <String>['file', binaryPath], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test should use the -b flag for the file command to match the recommended fix in the production code.
command: <String>['file', '-b', binaryPath],| if (fatBinaries.isNotEmpty) { | ||
| commandList.add( | ||
| FakeCommand( | ||
| command: <String>['file', fatBinaries.first], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test should use the -b flag for the file command to match the recommended fix in the production code.
command: <String>['file', '-b', fatBinaries.first],4e3f55b
into
flutter:flutter-3.44-candidate.0
Please fill in the form below, and a flutter domain expert will evaluate this cherry pick request.
Issue Link:
What is the link to the issue this cherry-pick is addressing?
#121178
Impact Description:
What is the impact (ex. visual jank on Samsung phones, app crash, cannot ship an iOS app)?
Does it impact development (ex. flutter doctor crashes when Android Studio is installed),
or the shipping of production apps (the app crashes on launch).
This information is for domain experts and release engineers to understand the consequences of saying yes or no to the cherry pick.
This build iOS tooling as fat binaries (arm and x86) so that is no longer requires Rosetta. Rosetta is being sunset and Apple is apparently already showing warnings when x86 binaries are used with Rosetta: https://www.macrumors.com/2026/02/16/macos-tahoe-26-4-rosetta-2-warnings/
Changelog Description:
Explain this cherry pick:
See best practices for examples.
[flutter/121178] When running your app on a physical iOS device, binary tools used to deploy the app are only built with x86 and therefore require Rosetta.
Workaround:
Is there a workaround for this issue?
Ignore warnings
Risk:
What is the risk level of this cherry-pick?
Test Coverage:
Are you confident that your fix is well-tested by automated tests?
Validation Steps:
What are the steps to validate that this fix works?
Run and deploy to an iOS device (validated by CI)