Reputation: 449
Suppose John developed App A and Heather developed App B. They each have different Apple Developer's accounts and they are not on the same team or associated in any way. App B is backed by a public CloudKit database. Is there any way for App A to write to App B's public CloudKit database? Namely, can App A do this:
let DB = CKContainer(identifier: "iCloud.com.Heather.AppB").publicCloudDatabase
and then write to or read from this DB
?
I'm guessing that this is not allowed out of the box, but is there a way to set up authentication so that this is possible?
Upvotes: 0
Views: 812
Reputation: 8995
This looks/sounds like the solution you seek.
CloudKit share Data between different iCloud accounts but not with everyone as outlined by https://stackoverflow.com/users/1878264/edwin-vermeer an iCloud specialist on SO.
There is third party explaination on this link too. https://medium.com/@kwylez/cloudkit-sharing-series-intro-4fc82dad7a9
Key steps shamelessly cut'n'pasted ... make sure you read and credit Cory on medium.com!
// Add an Info.plist key for CloudKit Sharing
<key>CKSharingSupported</key>
<true/>
More code...
CKContainer.default().discoverUserIdentity(withPhoneNumber: phone, completionHandler: {identity, error in
guard let userIdentity: CKUserIdentity = identity, error == nil else {
DispatchQueue.main.async(execute: {
print("fetch user by phone error " + error!.localizedDescription)
})
return
}
DispatchQueue.main.async(execute: {
print("user identity was discovered \(identity)")
})
})
/// Create a shred the root record
let recordZone: CKRecordZone = CKRecordZone(zoneName: "FriendZone")
let rootRecord: CKRecord = CKRecord(recordType: "Note", zoneID: recordZone.zoneID)
// Create a CloudKit share record
let share = CKShare(rootRecord: rootRecord)
share[CKShareTitleKey] = "Shopping List” as CKRecordValue
share[CKShareThumbnailImageDataKey] = shoppingListThumbnail as CKRecordValue
share[CKShareTypeKey] = "com.yourcompany.name" as CKRecordValue
/// Setup the participants for the share (take the CKUserIdentityLookupInfo from the identity you fetched)
let fetchParticipantsOperation: CKFetchShareParticipantsOperation = CKFetchShareParticipantsOperation(userIdentityLookupInfos: [userIdentity])
fetchParticipantsOperation.fetchShareParticipantsCompletionBlock = {error in
if let error = error {
print("error for completion" + error!.localizedDescription)
}
}
fetchParticipantsOperation.shareParticipantFetchedBlock = {participant in
print("participant \(participant)")
/// 1
participant.permission = .readWrite
/// 2
share.addParticipant(participant)
let modifyOperation: CKModifyRecordsOperation = CKModifyRecordsOperation(recordsToSave: [rootRecord, share], recordIDsToDelete: nil)
modifyOperation.savePolicy = .ifServerRecordUnchanged
modifyOperation.perRecordCompletionBlock = {record, error in
print("record completion \(record) and \(error)")
}
modifyOperation.modifyRecordsCompletionBlock = {records, recordIDs, error in
guard let ckrecords: [CKRecord] = records, let record: CKRecord = ckrecords.first, error == nil else {
print("error in modifying the records " + error!.localizedDescription)
return
}
/// 3
print("share url \(url)")
}
CKContainer.default().privateDB.add(modifyOperation)
}
CKContainer.default().add(fetchParticipantsOperation)
And on the other side of the fence.
let acceptShareOperation: CKAcceptSharesOperation = CKAcceptSharesOperation(shareMetadatas: [shareMeta])
acceptShareOperation.qualityOfService = .userInteractive
acceptShareOperation.perShareCompletionBlock = {meta, share, error in
Log.print("meta \(meta) share \(share) error \(error)")
}
acceptShareOperation.acceptSharesCompletionBlock = {error in
Log.print("error in accept share completion \(error)")
/// Send your user to wear that need to go in your app
}
CKContainer.default().container.add(acceptShareOperation)
Really I cannot hope to do the article justice, go read it... its in three parts!
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 22701
If the apps were in the same organization, there is a way to set up shared access. But as you described the situation, it is not possible.
Upvotes: 0