[S] Change in dart/sdk[main]: Add documentation for the deprecated_factory_method warning
Brian Wilkerson (Gerrit)
New activity on the change![]( "Open in Gerrit")
Related details
- Connie Ooi
Code-Owners
Code-Review
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Connie Ooi (Gerrit)
Connie Ooi added 4 comments![]( "Open in Gerrit")
The analyzer produces this diagnostic when the declaration of an instance
method named `factory` will be interpreted as a constructor declaration
after the `primary_constructors` feature is enabled.The analyzer produces this diagnostic when the declaration of an instance method named `factory` is interpreted as a constructor declaration after the `primary_constructors` feature is enabled.
This problem only impacts declarations where there's no return type and
the name of the method is either the first token or is preceded only by
`external`, `augment`, or `augment external`. The last two will only be
valid after the `augmentations` feature is enabled.This issue only affects declarations that lack a return type and where the method name is the first token or is preceded only by `external`, `augment`, or `augment external`. The `augment` and `augment external` keywords are valid only after the `augmentations` feature is enabled.
If the name could reasonably be changed, then rename the method:Rename the method if the name can be changed:
If the name can't reasonably be changed, then add a return type:Add a return type if the name must remain `factory`:
Related details
- Brian Wilkerson
Code-Owners
Code-Review
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Brian Wilkerson (Gerrit)
Brian Wilkerson voted and added 4 comments![]( "Open in Gerrit")
Votes added by Brian Wilkerson
| Commit-Queue | +1 |
4 comments
The analyzer produces this diagnostic when the declaration of an instance
method named `factory` will be interpreted as a constructor declaration
after the `primary_constructors` feature is enabled.The analyzer produces this diagnostic when the declaration of an instance method named `factory` is interpreted as a constructor declaration after the `primary_constructors` feature is enabled.
Done
This problem only impacts declarations where there's no return type and
the name of the method is either the first token or is preceded only by
`external`, `augment`, or `augment external`. The last two will only be
valid after the `augmentations` feature is enabled.This issue only affects declarations that lack a return type and where the method name is the first token or is preceded only by `external`, `augment`, or `augment external`. The `augment` and `augment external` keywords are valid only after the `augmentations` feature is enabled.
Done
If the name could reasonably be changed, then rename the method:Rename the method if the name can be changed:
This breaks the if-then format used in every other piece of diagnostic documentation, so I didn't apply it. But I did replace "could reasonably" with "can".
If the name can't reasonably be changed, then add a return type:Add a return type if the name must remain `factory`:
Same here. I updated the wording while retaining the if-then structure.
Related details
- Connie Ooi
Code-Owners
Code-Review
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Connie Ooi (Gerrit)
Connie Ooi added 2 comments![]( "Open in Gerrit")
If the name could reasonably be changed, then rename the method:Brian WilkersonRename the method if the name can be changed:
This breaks the if-then format used in every other piece of diagnostic documentation, so I didn't apply it. But I did replace "could reasonably" with "can".
Done
If the name can't reasonably be changed, then add a return type:Brian WilkersonAdd a return type if the name must remain `factory`:
Same here. I updated the wording while retaining the if-then structure.
- Brian Wilkerson
Code-Owners
Code-Review
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Connie Ooi (Gerrit)
Connie Ooi voted![]( "Open in Gerrit")
| Code-Review | +1 |
| Commit-Queue | +1 |
Related details
- Brian Wilkerson
Code-Owners
Code-Review
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Brian Wilkerson (Gerrit)
Brian Wilkerson voted and added 1 comment![]( "Open in Gerrit")
Votes added by Brian Wilkerson
| Commit-Queue | +1 |
- Connie Ooi
- Samuel Rawlins
Code-Owners
Code-Review
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Samuel Rawlins (Gerrit)
Samuel Rawlins voted Code-Review+1![]( "Open in Gerrit")
- Brian Wilkerson
- Connie Ooi
Code-Owners
Code-Review
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Brian Wilkerson (Gerrit)
Brian Wilkerson voted and added 1 comment![]( "Open in Gerrit")
Votes added by Brian Wilkerson
| Commit-Queue | +2 |
1 comment
I'm going to land this, but I'm happy to update the docs if there are further changes desired.
Related details
- Connie Ooi
Code-Owners
Code-Review
Review-Enforcement
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |
Commit Queue (Gerrit)
Commit Queue submitted the change![]( "Open in Gerrit")
Change information
Add documentation for the deprecated_factory_method warning
- M pkg/analyzer/messages.yaml
Code-Review: +1 by Samuel Rawlins, +1 by Connie Ooi
| Inspect html for hidden footers to help with email filtering. To unsubscribe visit settings. |