Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request migrates the go_router_builder package and its examples from the official package:flutter/material.dart to the third-party package:material_ui package, bumping the package version to 5.0.0. Feedback indicates that first-party Flutter packages and their examples must rely on the official Flutter SDK rather than third-party alternatives, and requests reverting the dependency additions and import changes.
| go_router: ^17.3.0 | ||
| leak_tracker_flutter_testing: ">=3.0.0" | ||
| logging: ^1.2.0 | ||
| material_ui: ^1.3.0 |
| // ignore_for_file: public_member_api_docs, unreachable_from_main | ||
|
|
||
| import 'package:flutter/material.dart'; | ||
| import 'package:material_ui/material_ui.dart'; |
| @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ | |||
| ## 5.0.0 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@chunhtai this migration only affects the example, but I figured if folks copy paste from the example it maybe should still be considered a major release? What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no, example change is not consider a breaking change. I think change like this can even skip a release unless it is touching things that will show up in pub or doc. for example
example/lib/main.dartwhich is used by pub- examples for code excerpt
but of course there is the sdk bump. so I think this change can just be a patch release, or which ever qualify for sdk bump
Part of unblocking flutter/flutter#192957
Pre-Review Checklist
[shared_preferences]///).If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on Discord.
Note: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of Gemini Code Assist for GitHub. Comments from the
gemini-code-assistbot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments should be addressed.Footnotes
Regular contributors who have demonstrated familiarity with the repository guidelines only need to comment if the PR is not auto-exempted by repo tooling. ↩ ↩2