TomUviandClaude Opus 5
542dd925d0
A UI test went red in the same run that adopted three new APIs. The one touching that screen was reverted; the test still failed. A modifier order was corrected; still failed. Simulator data was wiped; still failed. Running it against a clean checkout — which should have been the first move, not the fourth — it failed there too, with none of the work present. The scrolling entry had already been rewritten to explain the fault in confident detail. That write-up was fiction, so it now says what actually happened: the API was convicted on circumstance and remains unproven here, and the one claim that survives is about its two-way binding costing invalidations. xcode-practice gets the general lesson, since it will outlive this particular test: stash and rerun before reasoning about which edit did it, and a note recording a false cause is worse than no note, because the next person believes it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
34 lines
775 B
JSON
34 lines
775 B
JSON
{
|
|
"name": "pdat",
|
|
"owner": {
|
|
"name": "PDAT s.r.o.",
|
|
"email": "tomas.uvira@pdat.cz"
|
|
},
|
|
"metadata": {
|
|
"description": "PDAT's Claude Code plugins: practices and findings for the platforms we build on."
|
|
},
|
|
"plugins": [
|
|
{
|
|
"name": "pdat-swift-practice",
|
|
"source": "./pdat-swift-practice",
|
|
"description": "Curated Apple platform findings with sources, plus practices learned from production incidents.",
|
|
"version": "0.3.0",
|
|
"author": {
|
|
"name": "PDAT s.r.o."
|
|
},
|
|
"license": "MIT",
|
|
"category": "development",
|
|
"keywords": [
|
|
"swift",
|
|
"swiftui",
|
|
"ios",
|
|
"macos",
|
|
"watchos",
|
|
"core-data",
|
|
"xcodegen",
|
|
"swift-testing"
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|