[5.1] Replace stdlib and test/stdlib 9999 availability. (#26108) #26146
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
macOS 9999 -> macOS 10.15
iOS 9999 -> iOS 13
tvOS 9999 -> tvOS 13
watchOS 9999 -> watchOS 6
We need this to allow master to work on 10.14 systems (in particular, to allow PR testing to work correctly without disabling back-deployment tests).
Cherry-pick of #26108
Explanation: We still have 9999 availability sprinkled throughout the tests and standard library. This change replaces all the standard library availability with the appropriate macOS, iOS, tvOS and watchOS versions. It's important to get these changes landed before people start adding features synced with future Swift versions to avoid ambiguity.
Scope: Availability annotations only, except that we had to add a fallback implementation of an internal method that will never actually be called in a built standard lib (which is always in-sync with the host OS platform), but is necessary for PR testing to work (because we're testing a 10.15 stdlib on a 10.14 host).
Risk: Low. This should not have any effect on actually released stdlibs or toolchains, since they already have availability annotated.
Testing: Full integration testing.
Reviewer: @lorentey, @milseman
Radar: rdar://problem/53163787