-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 816
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Generate default shared schemes? #215
Comments
Given that developers using XcodeGen will very likely not include the Xcode project in the repository, I'd default a shared scheme for each target. I think it's better than having to define an empty dictionary in the yaml. I can't think of a case where you don't want a shared scheme to be generated. |
I would love to have XcodeGen generate shared schemes so that I can use it together with libraries installable via Carthage. My plan is to have the |
If anyone else is interested in this, here is the |
Xcode does not generate shared schemes automatically, so I think we should stick with that behavior. |
@LinusU The spec you linked to has a @toshi0383 making it configurable via the command line is an interesting option, but I don't see any cases where you'd only sometimes want that, so it seems it's better to define it in the |
Perhaps an option called |
@yonaskolb I'd like to be able to turn off the "Autocreate Schemes" option. (Also discussed here) |
At the moment shared schemes are only generated if they are defined in
target.scheme
orschemes
. The problem is if someone wants to generate a simple shared scheme with no special options, the best way is to specify a target scheme with no options which looks a bit weird.This issue is highlighted here #57
When Xcode opens a project it creates default private schemes for each target if they don't exist already. What we could do is generate a default shared scheme for each target, possibly just app targets. You could still provide options for this via
target.scheme
, and if a top level scheme with the same name was created, it would override this default scheme.Possibly this could even live behind an option. Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: