update set_version.sh to work with beta versions

[ShiCheng-Lu]

tested by running it with beta / none-beta version strings with various versions

[gregsadetsky]

this is my first time seeing this file - don't mean to reshuffle everything, but the sed seems somewhat risky, since it regexps any return \d.\d.\d.+ string in RadarUtils..? i.e. if any other string like that appeared in that file, it would also be replaced with the sdk version?

could the actual version string be moved to a #define first (so that the version string appears on a single line with a clear name like SDK_VERSION), and then the sed line can be modified to only affect that SDK_VERSION? finally, sdkVersion would simply return that constant?

again, this feels safer than regexp'ing return ...

[ShiCheng-Lu]

this is my first time seeing this file - don't mean to reshuffle everything, but the sed seems somewhat risky, since it regexps any return \d.\d.\d.+ string in RadarUtils..? i.e. if any other string like that appeared in that file, it would also be replaced with the sdk version?

could the actual version string be moved to a #define first (so that the version string appears on a single line with a clear name like SDK_VERSION), and then the sed line can be modified to only affect that SDK_VERSION? finally, sdkVersion would simply return that constant?

again, this feels safer than regexp'ing return ...

this is my first time seeing this file - don't mean to reshuffle everything, but the sed seems somewhat risky, since it regexps any return \d.\d.\d.+ string in RadarUtils..? i.e. if any other string like that appeared in that file, it would also be replaced with the sdk version?

could the actual version string be moved to a #define first (so that the version string appears on a single line with a clear name like SDK_VERSION), and then the sed line can be modified to only affect that SDK_VERSION? finally, sdkVersion would simply return that constant?

again, this feels safer than regexp'ing return ...

Thats a great idea, It'll be safer

[gregsadetsky]

Great work!

I don't want to be annoying but if you could also add a comment above the DEFINE line just to note that it's important that this line stays as it is (in case someone is tempted to refactor it), that'd be great

Thanks again!

EDIT: done

[gregsadetsky]

hitting an error on the CI, possibly related to xcpretty/xcpretty#391 ..?

downgrade xcpretty?