YPE-1178 Add IOS CI build test

[camrun91]

Description

We had gotten the repo in a state where the IOS example app build was failing. This puts in place a CI test to make sure it passes on PR's

Type of Change

• feat: New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• fix: Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• docs: Documentation update
• refactor: Code refactoring (no functional changes)
• perf: Performance improvement
• test: Test additions or updates
• build: Build system or dependency changes
• ci: CI configuration changes
• chore: Other changes (maintenance, etc.)

Checklist

• My code follows the project's code style guidelines
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings or errors
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• All commit messages follow conventional commits format
• I have updated the appropriate section in documentation (if needed)

[camrun91]

@jhampton, adding you as a reviewer here for context. This failure is legit; it is the failure I fixed in my other PR. Once that one gets merged, we will be able to update this pr and should see the test pass here.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex usage limits have been reached for code reviews. Please check with the admins of this repo to increase the limits by adding credits.
Credits must be used to enable repository wide code reviews.

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Overview

Greptile Summary

Added new GitHub Actions workflow to test iOS example app builds on pull requests to main branch

• Sets up macOS runner with Xcode, Node.js 20, Ruby 3.2, and CocoaPods
• Installs dependencies for both root and example app
• Uses Expo prebuild to generate native iOS directory
• Builds iOS app to catch build failures in CI before merge
• Comment on line 15 says "Pin Xcode" but actually uses 'latest-stable' (not pinned)
• Missing explicit permissions block (other workflows use contents: read)
• Missing newline at end of file

Confidence Score: 4/5

• Safe to merge with minor style improvements recommended
• Workflow follows good patterns from existing CI workflows, properly sets up iOS build environment, and achieves stated goal of testing iOS builds. Only style issues: misleading comment about pinning Xcode, missing permissions block, and missing newline at EOF
• No files require special attention

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
.github/workflows/example_ios_build.yml	New CI workflow to test iOS example app builds on PRs; comment contradicts xcode-version config

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant PR as Pull Request
    participant GHA as GitHub Actions
    participant Node as Node.js Setup
    participant Expo as Expo Prebuild
    participant Ruby as Ruby/Bundler
    participant Xcode as Xcode Build

    PR->>GHA: Trigger on PR to main
    GHA->>GHA: Checkout repository
    GHA->>Xcode: Select latest-stable Xcode
    GHA->>Node: Setup Node 20 with npm cache
    Node->>GHA: Install root dependencies (npm ci)
    Node->>GHA: Install example dependencies (npm ci)
    GHA->>Expo: Run expo prebuild --clean --platform ios
    Expo->>GHA: Generate ios/ directory with native code
    GHA->>Ruby: Setup Ruby 3.2 with bundler cache
    Ruby->>GHA: Install CocoaPods (pod install)
    GHA->>Xcode: Build iOS app (npm run ios --no-install)
    Xcode->>GHA: Build result
    GHA->>PR: Report success/failure

Loading

[greptile-apps]

_{1 file reviewed, 3 comments}

_{Edit Code Review Agent Settings | Greptile}

[jhampton]

Small suggestion on the comment for future improvement, otherwise LGTM once it runs successfully. https://github.com/youversion/platform-sdk-reactnative/actions/runs/21490549279 shows an error about missing "jobs", suggestion below.

[jhampton]

I agree, and perhaps our model is:

• Run pinned version -1
• Run pinned verstion
• Run latest

This gives us consistency and an early warning signal around new failures with some regression confidence as well.

[camrun91]

Are you thinking run a test on each version so we have a heads up on breaking changes on specific versions?

[camrun91]

@jhampton is my understanding of the above correct? I like the thought, I just have not seen a setup like this before.

[jhampton]

That's correct - sorry for the delay.

[camrun91]

@jhampton how about we go ahead and merge this and we can track somewhere the possible improvements.

[jhampton]

🚀