Usage with Swift 6

[erikbernsen]

Hi, just learned about this library and tried to give it a try to replace another swift SMB library that gave me some issues. So far everything works very smoothly. Thanks for that.

Just one comment/question: When compiling my application with Swift 6 I get these types of errors:

Sending 'self.client' risks causing data races
Sending 'self'-isolated 'self.client' to nonisolated instance method 'login(username:password:domain:workstation:)' risks causing data races between nonisolated and 'self'-isolated uses

My code uses a Connection actor that has a SMBClient contained in it and it complains about using the client. So for instance:

actor Connection : IConnection {
private let client : SMBClient

init() {
     // Initialise client.
}

func getFileAttributesAtPath(filePath: String) async throws -> any IAttributes {
        let fileStat = try await client.fileStat(path: filePath) // <-- This gives an error
        // Do more stuff.
}

Going back to Swift 5 turns these errors into warnings and so far I see no problems while running the app.

I suspect what would help is if the SMBClient would be Sendable. Now I didn't look into how SMBClient is implemented yet, but Is there a fundamental reason why SMBClient is not Sendable? If wanted I can spend some time seeing what it needs to get SMBClient Sendable.

[Torrontes123]

I think SMBClient cannot be sendable because

public var onDisconnected: (Error) -> Void {
  didSet {
    session.onDisconnected = onDisconnected
  }
}

is not immutable. The class is also not marked final, which may or may not be desirable. From the docs:

Sendable Classes
To satisfy the requirements of the Sendable protocol, a class must:

• Be marked final
• Contain only stored properties that are immutable and sendable
• Have no superclass or have NSObject as the superclass

[Torrontes123]

One possible way to see why a class may fail to be Sendable, is to try making it an actor and see what the compiler tells you.

[erikbernsen]

Yes, indeed, it cannot be made Sendable without changing the interface. But I could imagine that it could be okay to make onDisconnected part of constructor. Or make it an asynchronous setter, in which case I think it could be made Sendable. I think making SMBClient Sendable would make it much more usefull.