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.

@ayyoub-coder thank you so much!

Unfortunately I didn't notice you'd contributed a fix before I started working on it myself.

I have a slight preference toward avoiding Container objects, but I also appreciate the effort you put into this fix. I've opened #160193, but we can merge your change instead if you add a regression test and make sure all checks are passing.

Thanks again!

@nate-thegrate Thank you for reviewing my PR and providing valuable feedback!

I noticed the test you authored in PR #160193 for verifying the connector line in the vertical Stepper widget.
It’s a fantastic contribution and aligns seamlessly with the changes I’m implementing, so I’ve included your test in my PR.

Thanks again for your great work!

Thanks again @ayyoub-coder for your fantastic contribution!
I'm ashamed to go back on my word, but I think it's most likely that #160193 will be merged instead of this one, for a couple of reasons:

1. Per the Tree Hygiene page, contributions from those without commit access need 2 approvals before they can be merged, which means we'd need to continue putting resources into this fix.
2. Container is a kind of "heavy" class, with 11 fields and a beefy build method. At a bare minimum, it builds a ConstrainedBox wrapped with a LimitedBox, which is more expensive than render object widgets (they don't "build" anything).

Visual representation of number 2:

// this PR
PositionedDirectional
└── SizedBox
    └── Center
        └── ConstrainedBox
            └── ColoredBox
                └── LimitedBox
                    └── ConstrainedBox

// other PR
PositionedDirectional
└── Center
    └── SizedBox
        └── ColoredBox

The good first issue label might be worth checking out—next time you open a pull request, feel free to @ me and I'll make it a priority to help you get it to the finish line :)

Thank you so much for your kind words and detailed explanation, @nate-thegrate! I really appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into reviewing my PR and providing such insightful feedback.

I completely understand the rationale for moving forward with #160193—it’s a more efficient and streamlined approach. While I’m a bit disappointed that this PR won’t be merged, I’m grateful for the learning experience and the chance to contribute.

I’ll definitely explore the "good first issue" label and take you up on your generous offer to help with my next PR. It means a lot to know that you’re willing to support and guide me through future contributions.

Thanks again for everything! I look forward to collaborating with you on future Flutter improvements.