It looks like this pull request may not have tests. Please make sure to add tests before merging. If you need an exemption, contact "@test-exemption-reviewer" in the #hackers channel in Discord (don't just cc them here, they won't see it!).

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. The test exemption team is a small volunteer group, so all reviewers should feel empowered to ask for tests, without delegating that responsibility entirely to the test exemption group.

(PR triage): Hey @bartekpacia thanks for contributing. It looks like there are some failing checks here.

@reidbaker @gmackall do you have an idea why e.g. Mac_arm64 framework_tests_misc is failing? I run the equivalent command locally and it passes:

$ packages/integration_test/example/android
$ flutter build apk --debug
$ ./gradlew :integration_test:testDebugUnitTest --tests dev.flutter.plugins.integration_test.FlutterDeviceScreenshotTest

Updating to master and rerunning to see if the failure repetes. Looking at the past 100 or so runs I saw 2 failures but I think they were on pull requests that modified the integration test code.

It looks like the analyzer is complaining about a kotlin lint:

 Summary error count (descending) by rule:
║   standard:multiline-expression-wrapping: 1

ktlint wants this block of code:

pluginManagement {
    val flutterSdkPath = run {
        val properties = java.util.Properties()
        file("local.properties").inputStream().use { properties.load(it) }
        val flutterSdkPath = properties.getProperty("flutter.sdk")
        require(flutterSdkPath != null) { "flutter.sdk not set in local.properties" }
        flutterSdkPath
    }

    // ...
}

to look like this:

pluginManagement {
    val flutterSdkPath =
        run {
            val properties = java.util.Properties()
            file("local.properties").inputStream().use { properties.load(it) }
            val flutterSdkPath = properties.getProperty("flutter.sdk")
            require(flutterSdkPath != null) { "flutter.sdk not set in local.properties" }
            flutterSdkPath
        }

    // ...
}

which (1) I really don't like but more importantly (2) the first version has been the default for quite some time now, so I don't think we should change it.

Could we maybe disable ktlint for .kts files?

ktlint wants this block of code:

pluginManagement {
    val flutterSdkPath = run {
        val properties = java.util.Properties()
        file("local.properties").inputStream().use { properties.load(it) }
        val flutterSdkPath = properties.getProperty("flutter.sdk")
        require(flutterSdkPath != null) { "flutter.sdk not set in local.properties" }
        flutterSdkPath
    }

    // ...
}

to look like this:

pluginManagement {
    val flutterSdkPath =
        run {
            val properties = java.util.Properties()
            file("local.properties").inputStream().use { properties.load(it) }
            val flutterSdkPath = properties.getProperty("flutter.sdk")
            require(flutterSdkPath != null) { "flutter.sdk not set in local.properties" }
            flutterSdkPath
        }

    // ...
}

which (1) I really don't like but more importantly (2) the first version has been the default for quite some time now, so I don't think we should change it.

Could we maybe disable ktlint for .kts files?

@gmackall what do you think. In general I dont like debating style and lean towards any automatic formatting. This reason alone isnt enough for me to want to disable it for all kts files but I could be convinced otherwise.

ktlint wants this block of code:

pluginManagement {
    val flutterSdkPath = run {
        val properties = java.util.Properties()
        file("local.properties").inputStream().use { properties.load(it) }
        val flutterSdkPath = properties.getProperty("flutter.sdk")
        require(flutterSdkPath != null) { "flutter.sdk not set in local.properties" }
        flutterSdkPath
    }

    // ...
}

to look like this:

pluginManagement {
    val flutterSdkPath =
        run {
            val properties = java.util.Properties()
            file("local.properties").inputStream().use { properties.load(it) }
            val flutterSdkPath = properties.getProperty("flutter.sdk")
            require(flutterSdkPath != null) { "flutter.sdk not set in local.properties" }
            flutterSdkPath
        }

    // ...
}

which (1) I really don't like but more importantly (2) the first version has been the default for quite some time now, so I don't think we should change it.
Could we maybe disable ktlint for .kts files?

@gmackall what do you think. In general I dont like debating style and lean towards any automatic formatting. This reason alone isnt enough for me to want to disable it for all kts files but I could be convinced otherwise.

I am inclined to agree that unless there is a very strong argument against a specific auto formatting case, we should just accept the auto formatting wholesale (including here)

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.

(triage) @bartekpacia Do you still have plans for this PR?

Yes, I need to figure out why the tests are failing (and I've got no idea why as of now)

@bartekpacia Do you still have plans to return to this PR?

I would like to but I have 0 idea why it fails. It's probably some little thing but I don't notice it.

wooo all green :)

("it fixed itself" lol)

cc @reidbaker @gmackall