Martin Kustermann
b888da751e
This reverts commit c1976b097d.
Reason for revert: It seems this change caused failures on Flutter
HHH bot. Example log can be found at [0]:
```
| lib/src/super_reader/super_reader.dart:615:14: Error: Final field 'showDebugLeaderBounds' is not initialized.
| Try to initialize the field in the declaration or in every constructor.
| final bool showDebugLeaderBounds;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Looking at the sources it seems that may be related to the
`// ignore: unused_element` analyzer directive:
```
602 /// A [SuperReaderDocumentLayerBuilder] that builds a [SelectionLeadersDocumentLayer], which positions
603 /// leader widgets at the base and extent of the user's selection, so that other widgets
604 /// can position themselves relative to the user's selection.
605 class _SelectionLeadersDocumentLayerBuilder implements SuperReaderDocumentLayerBuilder {
606 const _SelectionLeadersDocumentLayerBuilder({
607 required this.links,
608 // ignore: unused_element
609 this.showDebugLeaderBounds = false,
610 });
611
612 /// Collections of [LayerLink]s, which are given to leader widgets that are
613 /// positioned at the selection bounds, and around the full selection.
614 final SelectionLayerLinks links;
615
616 /// Whether to paint colorful bounds around the leader widgets, for debugging purposes.
617 final bool showDebugLeaderBounds;
```
So tentatively reverting this CL.
[0] https://logs.chromium.org/logs/dart/buildbucket/cr-buildbucket/8739650477551803313/+/u/Run_customer_testing_tests/stdout
Original change's description:
> analyzer: separate unused_element_parameter from unused_element
>
> Fixes https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/49025
>
> This allows users to blanket ignore unused_element_parameter without
> ignoring unused_element. They are reported in distinct situations so it
> is valid to separate them.
>
> Tested: Presubmit CI
> Cq-Include-Trybots: luci.dart.try:flutter-analyze-try,analyzer-win-release-try,pkg-win-release-try
> Change-Id: I4844a6a0e0a67cd5e37ed8735b1526e174deb950
> Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/378500
> Reviewed-by: Brian Wilkerson <brianwilkerson@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Phil Quitslund <pquitslund@google.com>
> Commit-Queue: Samuel Rawlins <srawlins@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ryan Macnak <rmacnak@google.com>
Change-Id: Ibbba75fe56601c7c4b5535c9142cf94c2dd80b91
Cq-Include-Trybots: luci.dart.try:flutter-analyze-try,analyzer-win-release-try,pkg-win-release-try
No-Presubmit: true
No-Tree-Checks: true
No-Try: true
Reviewed-on: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/380460
Commit-Queue: Martin Kustermann <kustermann@google.com>
Bot-Commit: Rubber Stamper <rubber-stamper@appspot.gserviceaccount.com>
Reviewed-by: Slava Egorov <vegorov@google.com>
Package validation
The packages in pkg/ are automatically validated on the LUCI CI bots. The
validation is largely done by the tools/package_deps package; it can be tested
locally via:
dart tools/package_deps/bin/package_deps.dart
Packages which are published
There are several packages developed in pkg/ which are published to pub.
Validation of these packages is particularly important because the pub tools are
not used for these packages during development; we get our dependency versions
from the DEPS file. It's very easy for the dependencies specified in a package's
pubspec file to get out of date wrt the packages and versions actually used.
In order to better ensure we're publishing correct packages, we validate some properties of the pubspec files on our CI system. These validations include:
- that the dependencies listed in the pubspec are used in the package
- that all the packages used by the source are listed in the pubspec
- that we don't use relative path deps to pkg/ or third_party/ packages
Packages which are not published
For packages in pkg/ which we do not intend to be published, we put the following comment in the pubspec.yaml file:
# This package is not intended for consumption on pub.dev. DO NOT publish.
publish_to: none
These pubspecs are still validated by the package validation tool. The contents are more informational as the pubspecs for these packages are not consumed by the pub tool or ecosystem.
We validate:
- that the dependencies listed in the pubspec are used in the package
- that all the packages used by the source are listed in the pubspec
- that a reference to a pkg/ package is done via a relative path dependency