[vector_graphics_compiler] fix a renamed method parameter lint

[pq]

An upcoming fix to avoid_renaming_method_parameters will flag this rename.

(I updated the base class since that seems more correct.)

For references, here's the fix in flight: https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/394662

Pre-launch Checklist

• I read the Contributor Guide and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs.
• I read the Tree Hygiene page, which explains my responsibilities.
• I read and followed the relevant style guides and ran the auto-formatter. (Unlike the flutter/flutter repo, the flutter/packages repo does use dart format.)
• I signed the CLA.
• The title of the PR starts with the name of the package surrounded by square brackets, e.g. [shared_preferences]
• I linked to at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above.
• I updated pubspec.yaml with an appropriate new version according to the pub versioning philosophy, or this PR is exempt from version changes.
• I updated CHANGELOG.md to add a description of the change, following repository CHANGELOG style, or this PR is exempt from CHANGELOG changes.
• I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with ///).
• I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is test-exempt.
• All existing and new tests are passing.

If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on Discord.

[flutter-dashboard]

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.

[jonahwilliams]

Change LGTM

I think we would normally bump the version and do a bugfix release for this to avoid accumulating lots of unpublished changes? @stuartmorgan

[matanlurey]

test-exempt: Lint compliance to be tested by said lint.

[pq]

@jonahwilliams (or @stuartmorgan): in order to update what gets analyzed on the Dart SDK flutter-analyze try-bots, does a new version need to get vended in or does it grab package source at HEAD?

[stuartmorgan]

I think we would normally bump the version and do a bugfix release for this to avoid accumulating lots of unpublished changes? @stuartmorgan

We bend the interpretation of the "PRs that only affect local development of the package (e.g., changes to ignored lints)." version exemption sometimes to include cases where technically what is changing is actually code, but it's very obvious that it isn't changing behavior. I'm fine with that in this case.

in order to update what gets analyzed on the Dart SDK flutter-analyze try-bots, does a new version need to get vended in or does it grab package source at HEAD?

It's analyzing repo source, not published source.

[jonahwilliams]

Depends on where the analysis is failing. if its in the framework repo then it may be getting pulled in via pub, so we'd need to both publish and update deps.

If its in the packages repo then it doesn't matter if its published.

[stuartmorgan]

Depends on where the analysis is failing. if its in the framework repo then it may be getting pulled in via pub

The upstream analysis (both flutter/fluter and Dart-level) are source-based. flutter/flutter uses a pinned version that is auto-rolled. I forget what the Dart variant does about the exact version, but it's repo source.

[pq]

Here's the bot failure:

https://ci.chromium.org/ui/p/dart/builders/try/flutter-analyze-try/24085/overview

I can't tell from the output where the source is coming from but hoping we don't need to publish.

It's analyzing repo source, not published source.

EDIT: phew!

[pq]

Hmmm, looks like this caused a breakage after all:

https://logs.chromium.org/logs/dart/buildbucket/cr-buildbucket/8731382513574602801/+/u/Run_flutter_plugins_tests/stdout

(On the Flutter HHH bot).

@stuartmorgan, @jonahwilliams: Will this get fixed by an auto-roll?

[stuartmorgan]

Assuming that's the flutter/flutter test, https://autoroll.skia.org/r/flutter-packages-flutter-autoroll is the relevant auto-roller.

[pq]

Cool, thanks. Is there a good place for me to communicate that help is on the way?

[stuartmorgan]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking. Communicate to whom, and about what help? If a Dart-team-maintained tree is broken, I'm not familiar with the process for managing that.

[pq]

Sorry, my question wasn't really well-posed. I'm trying to figure out the reach of the inconvenience and let impacted folks know this should get fixed w/ the auto-roll. I'll do some more poking but if this is just affecting a Dart-team-maintained tree, that's good and I'll communicate w/ Dart folks. Thanks!

[gspencergoog]

@pq This is currently one of the things blocking the Flutter roll into google3, since it's causing the engine to flutter roller to fail, and that's blocking a needed Dart compiler fix from getting into the flutter repo. It looks like the flutter-packages-flutter-autoroll is blocked on some infra problems on macOS. Once that's resolved, I suspect things will all iron out, I just wanted to let you know about the pileup.

[pq]

Thanks @gspencergoog! If we need to push this through before the auto-roll is unblocked, we could consider disabling avoid_renaming_method_parameters temporarily. (We've done that kind of thing in the past.) Let me know if I can help at all (and sorry for the added hassle!)

[gspencergoog]

Seems like the packages roll made it through, so one less thing in the way. :-)

[pq]

Woohoo! Thanks!