Enable resolution of build_web_compilers 2.12.0, fix Dart stable build

[greglittlefield-wf]

Motivation

The Dart stable build was failing due to:

• (Mainly) not being able to resolve to build_web_compilers, ^1.12.0, which contains fixes for null-safety being opted into when it shouldn't
• Differences in some generated files compared to those generated in 2.7.2

Changes

• Update version bounds (credit to @aaronlademann-wf for almost all of these changes)
  • Increase analyzer upper bound so that build_web_compilers 1.12.0 can be resolved to in Dart 2.12+, and keep lower bound low enough so that we can still resolve in Dart 2.7
  • Widen other bounds as needed
• Update build to ignore changes in generated files

Release Notes

Update dependencies to allow resolution of build_web_compilers ^1.12.0 in Dart 2.12+, which contains fixes for null-safety being opted into when it shouldn't.

Review

See CONTRIBUTING.md for more details on review types (+1 / QA +1 / +10) and code review process.

Please review:

QA Checklist

• Tests were updated and provide good coverage of the changeset and other affected code
• Manual testing was performed if needed
  • Steps from PR author:
    • Main CI passes in Dart 2.7.2 and stable
      • Ignore dev for now; not sure what's going on there
    • Analyzer CI passes in Dart 2.7.2
      • Ignore stable, it has more issues we'll address later
  • Anything falling under manual testing criteria outlined in CONTRIBUTING.md

Merge Checklist

While we perform many automated checks before auto-merging, some manual checks are needed:

• A Client Platform member has reviewed these changes
• There are no unaddressed comments - this check can be automated if reviewers use the "Request Changes" feature
• For release PRs - Version metadata in Rosie comment is correct

[aviary-wf]

Security Insights

No security relevant content was detected by automated scans.

Action Items

• Review PR for security impact; comment "security review required" if needed or unsure
• Verify aviary.yaml coverage of security relevant code

---

Questions or Comments? Reach out on Slack: #support-infosec.

[robbecker-wf]

Passes on both 2.7.2 and 2.13

[robbecker-wf]

+10 solves and builds under both

[alanknight-wk]

It seems like there are two issues with the tests.

• The analyzer_plugin tests don't seem to be using the more recent build_runner with the fix to treatment of test files, so it's failing on analysis as if they were opted in to null-safety.
• mockito:mockBuilder hangs or has a very severe performance regression on dev. Which might be a dev bug. But it seems tricky to work around, though we could presumably build to source against an older sdk.

[alanknight-wk]

After a lot of investigation with really slow build cycles, I conclude that mockito 4.1.4 is definitely broken on dev, and we can't move to a 5.0 because it requires analyzer 1.0. Possibly the answer is to ignore dev for this, because we can move to 2.13, then upgrade builders and such to analyzer 1.0, and then upgrade beyond, with much smaller increments. So if we can do that, then it should just be a matter of the analyzer_plugin tests.

[greglittlefield-wf]

Thanks for looking into that more, @alanknight-wk!! Yeah, I'm fine ignoring the dev channel for now, and I think we could follow up with a separate PR to fix the analyzer_plugin issues in stable.

I alluded to those issues in the "QA checklist" section (though I didn't know any more specifics other than they were failing and that the analyzer plugin one was probably dependency related), but I'm not sure if people saw it and should have called it out more prominently, sorry about that.

[alanknight-wk]

Thanks for looking into that more, @alanknight-wk!! Yeah, I'm fine ignoring the dev channel for now, and I think we could follow up with a separate PR to fix the analyzer_plugin issues in stable.

I alluded to those issues in the "QA checklist" section (though I didn't know any more specifics other than they were failing and that the analyzer plugin one was probably dependency related), but I'm not sure if people saw it and should have called it out more prominently, sorry about that.

Yeah, it would definitely help if I'd read the QA checklist :-)

[alanknight-wk]

+10

[alanknight-wk]

@Workiva/release-management-p

[rmconsole-wf]

+1 from RM