It looks like this pull request may not have tests. Please make sure to add tests before merging. If you need an exemption to this rule, contact Hixie on the #hackers channel in Chat (don't just cc him here, he won't see it! He's on Discord!).

If you are not sure if you need tests, consider this rule of thumb: the purpose of a test is to make sure someone doesn't accidentally revert the fix. Ask yourself, is there anything in your PR that you feel it is important we not accidentally revert back to how it was before your fix?

Reviewers: Read the Tree Hygiene page and make sure this patch meets those guidelines before LGTMing.

Thanks for the review! I will add tests soon. (I got rejected too many times for PRs with full tests and green CI, just because the main idea/target does not look good... So that's why I hope to have a brief review about whether the idea is acceptable)

This pull request executed golden file tests, but it has not been updated in a while (20+ days). Test results from Gold expire after as many days, so this pull request will need to be updated with a fresh commit in order to get results from Gold.

For more guidance, visit Writing a golden file test for package:flutter.

Reviewers: Read the Tree Hygiene page and make sure this patch meets those guidelines before LGTMing.

@flutter-dashboard - I will update this PR as soon as I get back working on mobile (working on backend now)

(I got rejected too many times for PRs with full tests and green CI, just because the main idea/target does not look good... So that's why I hope to have a brief review about whether the idea is acceptable)

I would recommend discussing the proposed solution in the issue or on Discord first then, or writing a design doc and soliciting feedback there. I think this will make for a more efficient experience for both contributors and reviewers. :)

I would recommend discussing the proposed solution in the issue or on Discord first then, or writing a design doc and soliciting feedback there. I think this will make for a more efficient experience for both contributors and reviewers. :)

Thanks for the suggestion! I will try that next time.

PS. I did not forget this PR, just have no time available to finish it currently, but will definitely continue later!

If we do this we should probably do something like MainAxisSize or StackFit rather than calling this "shrink-wrap" (which I think we try to reserve for using intrinsic dimensions).

@Hixie Sure!

EDIT: Done

@cbracken The CLA bot seems to be unhappy about the commits you have co-authored in this PR?! Is that a config issue on your end?

I don't think so; I've never had the CLA bot shout about suggested commits in recent memory. Seems like potentially a bug in the CLA bot? The CLA is implicit for all Googlers, but I've also signed it manually (years ago, back in 2013) just in case.

There was a period years ago where the bot got upset when it saw commits from more than one contributor on a patch, but that hasn't been the case in years. Checked the corporate directory just in case the bot knows something I don't but seems I'm still employed by Google. 😅

I think I have a guess as to what happened. I just tried to manually re-sign the CLA and it wants you to log in with a GAIA account with that email address. Until recently I had my personal custom-domain email hosted via Google Workspaces but I migrated to another solution and deleted the dasher domain last week. I wonder if the CLA bot requires an email account managed by Google.

I can see about trying to restore the dasher domain this week, but given that we know I'm an employee, I think we're safe to merge regardless of CLA bot status.

Edit: I'm not entirely sure this is right actually; I looked myself up on the internal CLA tool and everything looks good. I think we should merge regardless.

OK, thanks @cbracken. I am going to do a rebase to kick the google testing job and if the CLA complains again override it.

@fzyzcjy Can you resolve the conflicts and then we should be able to get this in.

Sure!