Apple Store Review information request


#84

Things are starting to get a little noisy in here so I’ve created a new topic for folk who’d just like to follow status updates on this issue without the discussion:


#85

I’m sorry to report our most recent submission which uses 2.5.4 has been rejected. We have only official trigger.io modules including:

  • barcode
  • launchimage
  • browsersettings
  • icons
  • urlhandler
  • tabs
  • parameters
  • file

@antoinevg we really appreciate your efforts on this.


#86

We too juse got rejected…

We used

Parse
Bolt

This time around as before it was pushwoosh

@flippyhead barcode, while it is one of their modules, as Antoine pointed out, it’s based off an open source lib… we use that too so I’ll try removing that and see what happens…


#87

Re-submitted with urlhandler removed and it was rejected within 20 minutes; which was oddly fast.


#88

What about Barcode?

This whole thing is very odd…


#89

Sorry I mistyped, I had removed barcode not urlhandler. So yes rejected still.


#90

Umm that is rediculious… so it’s just all trigger modules, what the f***

I’m wondering if the file module may trigger anything as it can “download” files? I mean this is not uncommon at all but yah…


#91

So this is a random thought but could the tabs module be the culprit?

So I was looking back at the docs and remembered that you can call apis remotely from a tab window with the tabs advanced… could this be the issue?


#92

Just wanted to share my experience here, as we now have had two successful app submissions (one new, one update) since all of this started:

  1. Most of our apps got the notice about code not being compliant and that we should make sure to take changes before the next updates. None of our apps got removed. This was on forge v2.5.1.
  2. We informed Trigger.io and promptly got v2.5.2 as an initial reaction.
  3. Using v2.5.2, we submitted two apps:

A) A new app, which has not been previously flagged, because there was no binary uploaded at the time of the “incident”. Review took about 3 days, but the app was accepted without any complications!

B) An app update, for one of the apps that has been previously flagged as not being compliant. The technical foundation was exactly the same as app A, so we expected same results. However the app was rejected. We replied that the issues have already been addressed and that app A got accepted on the same basis. We kindly asked Apple whether this could be a false positive and if they could re-review. They granted this and said they would re-review. Then there were 7 days silence. During that time we contacted the App Review Board and wrote another message to the actual reviewer. Just a few hours ago, the app got finally accepted.

So even with some complications, we did got two apps on v2.5.2 accepted on the App Store while having reload in use. Also we are using a lot of modules like tabs, parse, etc as well as some custom modules.

Before B got accepted, I’ve also submitted a third app on that technical basis to the app store, so lets see how that goes. We will most probably be submitting an update for the remaining apps to the store this week and hope for the best.

Hope this helps you guys somehow!


#93

@prud Thanks for the write up! You touch on a hypothesis I was thinking about, where new ‘apps’ seem to pass review just fine but updated apps seem to fail. While I have not confirmed this personally the anicdodal information contained in the thread seems to support that theory [ your comments, as well as @antoinevg having the first app ’ approved’ ]

@prun can you share what modules you are using?

I have an app that I can submit as new but have been trying to just update it vs having a whole new app and it keeps getting rejected as I’m sure you can tell :slight_smile: now with that said it does seem odd that new apps get accepted and new ones do not, as if they are using different scanners…

@iolivier was your app new or an update?


#94

@proxim0 I agree that it looks like new apps have a better chance. Interestingly even our updated app got accepted eventually. We did use platform v2.5.2 with the following modules:

  • contact 2.10
  • icons 2.7
  • launchimage 2.12
  • display 2.5
  • file 2.12
  • notification 2.7
  • bolts 1.6.0
  • parse 2.14
  • custom tabs module based on current trigger tabs
  • urlhandler 2.1
  • prefs 2.2
  • browsersettings 1.3
  • platform 2.1
  • parameters 2.0
  • 4 more custom modules that should hopefully not have any non-compliant code :slight_smile:

#95

My configuration is similar, no custom modules… I resubmitted an update last night with a different tabs module to see if it has any impact but none of it is making any sense.

Reading some of the other forum post is just full of people splitting hairs trying to guess at what apple means but to my knowledge there has been no specific cause…

At any rate if the update get rejected again I may just release as a new app and hopefully have more luck


#96

I am not so sure about this theory.

Reminder : my app is a 2 years old app.

  1. Flagged at the beginning of this story (was a binary uploaded 4 month ago).
  2. The day after I submitted a binary on 2.5.2
  3. App was “Waiting for Review”
  4. Flag disappear on live release while the 2.5.2 binary was still “Waiting for review”
  5. App is reviewed and accepted…

Note that Reload was enabled on the flagged version, and the reviewed app, i unchecked reload.

The module was the same as before

bolts
damn_you_form_assist
display
facebook
file
icons
launchimages
media
notification
parse
payments (i use payments in my app)
permissions
prefs
request
tabs
topbar
urlhandler


#97

So finally a bit of good news… the one app I have been trying to get approved was approved a fewin ago.

This app was an update to an older app, I built with 2.5.2, turned reload off and pushed the tab module to the beta branch… not sure if that helped… next I also switched from pushwoosh to parse, again. I don’t think that is the case because we had parse in the last release and it did not pass.


#98

We are suddenly seeing all our app submission be accepted!

Thanks @antoinevg!


#99

Status Update: Thursday, 23 March 10h30 GMT

  • More customers are reporting that their apps are suddenly passing review.

  • We’ve made some headway with our efforts to pass information on to the App review team via unofficial channels. (Tx @goodgravy !)

  • Another one of our test apps has been rejected but, this time, on the basis that the reviewer found the app description lacking. This is good :slight_smile:

  • It’s now been over 36 hours since our primary test app entered “In Review” status. Highly unusual and it leads me to hope that someone at Apple is starting to pay attention.

Current Platform Recommendation

  • I have released v2.5.5 of the Trigger.IO platform which re-enables Reload.

  • If your app relies on Reload or you have a non-critical app submission pending we’d be very interested to hear about the outcome if you’re willing to take a chance on submitting a v2.5.5 build.

  • Otherwise, probably safest to stick to v2.5.4 for now.

Current Modules Recommendation

  • We have released v2.9 of the request module which removed a dependency on the 3rd-party AFNetworking framework. AFNetworking itself is not problematic but we’re in the process of removing outdated dependencies from the codebase to make future code reviews easier.

  • If your app has been rejected after resubmitting with v2.5.4 or v2.5.5 and contains any of the following modules:

  • apptentive

  • barcode

  • bolts

  • facebook

  • flurry

  • kumulos

  • parse

  • pushwoosh

  • segmentio

  • urbanairship

  • Any custom modules which are not listed on the official module catalog at: https://trigger.io/modules/_/all/

  • Please remove these modules (temporarily!) from your app’s configuration and rebuild before resubmitting.

  • Even if removing the modules breaks your app it will tell us a lot if a subsequent rejection notice complained about broken app functionality rather than the standard “Performance - 2.5.2” rejection.


#100

I resubmitted my app with all modules in place, using Platform 2.5.3, I believe ( latest at the time ) on the 17th. It’s still in review. That’s both good and bad; previous rejections came within hours, however previously accepted versions were through and done in review in a day or two. So… limbo, and here I wait.

Also, here’s the latest communications I got from PushWoosh, so it seems they’re not one of the reasons Apple may have been rejecting…

Hello Chris,

I would like to update you on the issue.

We have performed a few tests, including re-submission (successful) of our test app to App store and it would appear the our SDK is not connected with the rejection. Moreover, there are no other cases of such rejections reported other then this one on Trigger.io


#101

Correction: March 15th is when I resubmitted it; not the 17th.


#102

This is potentially good, your app id is part of the set I forwarded through to Apple so it supports the theory that there’s an active investigation going on. :slight_smile:

This is good to hear Chris, thank you!


#103

Here’s an update that seems promising… I got a call from Apple yesterday, but OF COURSE I missed the call (sigh). I called her back at the number provided, but it went to voice mail. I saved the outgoing and incoming numbers to my address book as “apple dev center” so if they call back any time soon, I’ll immediately see who it is, and I’ll stop what I’m doing rather than returning calls later. They also updated my submission with an “Information Request” current status, which I take WAY more comfort in than a flat out rejection.

Now to play Telephone Tag with a Ms. Kelley Hawley at Apple. I’m so bummed I missed her call :\

Here’s hoping…