feat(ios): haptic, whose reason expired when ios_config landed

packages/zig/src/ios_dispatch.zigmodified+12-6

Changes to packages/zig/src/ios_dispatch.zig

		⋯381 linesShow the 381 lines above this hunk@@ -382,8 +382,10 @@ comptime {
382	382	///
383	383	/// `.status = .unavailable` in a module's manifest means the handler is
384	384	/// reachable and refuses, deliberately, because Zig cannot do the thing
385		-/// correctly — `haptic` cannot see `config.enableHaptics`, and the rest say
386		-/// why in their own `reason`.
	385	+/// correctly; each one says why in its own `reason`. `haptic` was the example
	386	+/// this comment used to give, and is now the example of a reason expiring:
	387	+/// `ios_config.zig` made `config.enableHaptics` readable and the refusal
	388	+/// outlived it.
387	389	///
388	390	/// In the Zig-hosted app that refusal is the honest end of the line: `route`
389	391	/// tries `handOffToHost` next, and the shim is what actually serves it. The
		⋯1 lineShow the 1 line above this hunk@@ -391,8 +393,9 @@ comptime {
391	393	/// deliberately does not consult `handOffToHost`, because there the host *is*
392	394	/// the caller. So claiming one of these would not be a refusal instead of an
393	395	/// answer, it would be a refusal instead of the *host's working answer*: an app
394		-/// that has haptics today would stop buzzing the moment the runtime was linked,
395		-/// and the page would get a rejection where it used to get silence-and-a-buzz.
	396	+/// that had haptics would have stopped buzzing the moment the runtime was
	397	+/// linked, and the page would have got a rejection where it used to get
	398	+/// silence-and-a-buzz.
396	399	///
397	400	/// `test/ios_conformance_test.zig` already treats falling through as better
398	401	/// than `.unavailable`. This is that rule, applied to the one path that had no
		⋯505 linesShow the 505 lines above this hunk@@ -904,7 +907,6 @@ test "an action declared unavailable is left to the host, not claimed" {
904	907	// the difference, linking the runtime replaced the working answer with a
905	908	// rejection. `false` here is what sends the call back to Swift's switch.
906	909	const declared_unavailable = [_][]const u8{
907		- "haptic",
908	910	"getNetworkStatus",
909	911	"lockOrientation",
910	912	"unlockOrientation",
		⋯18 linesShow the 18 lines above this hunk@@ -929,7 +931,7 @@ test "the fall-through is read from the manifests, not from a list kept beside t
929	931	}
930	932	}
931	933	}
932		- try testing.expectEqual(@as(usize, 4), declared);
	934	+ try testing.expectEqual(@as(usize, 3), declared);
933	935	}
934	936
935	937	test "a live action is still claimed, unavailable is not a blanket hand-back" {
		⋯1 lineShow the 1 line above this hunk@@ -937,6 +939,10 @@ test "a live action is still claimed, unavailable is not a blanket hand-back" {
937	939	// `.live`, so the seam must keep claiming it. A fall-through that widened
938	940	// to whole modules would silently un-migrate everything beside a refusal.
939	941	try testing.expect(!hostServesItself("vibrate"));
	942	+ // `haptic` was the fourth entry above until `ios_config.zig` made the gate
	943	+ // it could not read readable. It is served here now, so handing it back
	944	+ // would hand back a working action.
	945	+ try testing.expect(!hostServesItself("haptic"));
940	946	try testing.expect(!hostServesItself("setKeepAwake"));
941	947	try testing.expect(!hostServesItself("getDeviceInfo"));
942	948	try testing.expect(!hostServesItself("noSuchAction"));