Delete customer_testing.bat #9795
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information. For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request. |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request deletes the customer_testing.bat script, which is a positive cleanup step. However, it introduces a small inconsistency by leaving a stale comment in the corresponding customer_testing.sh file that refers to the now-deleted batch script. I've added a comment highlighting this. Additionally, please remember to fill out the pull request description and checklist, and adjust the title to conform to repository conventions, as required by the project's style guide (lines 21-23).
stuartmorgan-g
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2025
Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](#9795 (review))) - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. This text is based on some iteration with Gemini, under the theory that the AI model has far more exposure to examples of good prompts than I do. 🤷🏻
auto-submit bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2025
Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](#9795 (review))) - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. This text is based on some iteration with Gemini, under the theory that the AI model has far more exposure to examples of good prompts than I do. 🤷🏻
9 tasks
WillBLogical
pushed a commit
to WillBLogical/packages
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2025
) Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter#9795 (review))) - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. This text is based on some iteration with Gemini, under the theory that the AI model has far more exposure to examples of good prompts than I do. 🤷🏻
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
to flutter/flutter
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2025
A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. 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](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot 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. <!-- Links --> [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
to flutter/flutter
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2025
A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. 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](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot 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. <!-- Links --> [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
to flutter/flutter
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2025
A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. 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](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot 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. <!-- Links --> [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md
SydneyBao
pushed a commit
to SydneyBao/flutter
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. 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](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot 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. <!-- Links --> [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md
SydneyBao
pushed a commit
to SydneyBao/flutter
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2025
…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. 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](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot 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. <!-- Links --> [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md
mboetger
pushed a commit
to mboetger/flutter
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 18, 2025
…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. 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](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot 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. <!-- Links --> [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md
korca0220
pushed a commit
to korca0220/flutter
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 22, 2025
…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. 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](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot 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. <!-- Links --> [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md
Jaineel-Mamtora
pushed a commit
to Jaineel-Mamtora/flutter_forked
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 24, 2025
…74000) A copy of @stuartmorgan-g change at flutter/packages#9805 > Initial attempt at adding guidance for GCAfGH to try cut down on the behavior observed so far that it: > - Almost always includes generic praise for the PR, which is unhelpful since the agent has no context for evaluating what PRs we actually want (see [this particularly problematic example](flutter/packages#9795 (review))) > - Appears to trust PR descriptions. E.g., recently praising a PR that was missing tests of most of the PR, but had a PR description saying it included extensive testing, as being extremely well tested. Here are examples of summaries from the packages repo before and after this change: Before (praise like "great refactoring effort", "significantly improves the modularity and maintainability", "extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement"): > This pull request is a great refactoring effort. Moving the ProxyAPI generation logic into a dedicated helper file (`proxy_api_generator_helper.dart`) significantly improves the modularity and maintainability of the Dart generator. The extensive documentation updates are also a major improvement, making the concepts around ProxyAPIs much clearer for developers. flutter/packages#9756 After (drier, describing the actual change without making normative evaluation): > This pull request introduces a new `clearAuthorizationToken` method across all layers of the `google_sign_in` plugin. This allows developers to manually clear a cached authorization token if it becomes invalid. The implementation is handled natively on Android, is a no-op on iOS (as the SDK handles it), and clears a local cache on the web. The changes include updates to the platform interface, implementations for each platform, and corresponding tests and documentation. flutter/packages#9846 (review) ## Pre-launch Checklist - [x] I read the [Contributor Guide] and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs. - [x] I read the [Tree Hygiene] wiki page, which explains my responsibilities. - [x] I read and followed the [Flutter Style Guide], including [Features we expect every widget to implement]. - [x] I signed the [CLA]. - [ ] I listed at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above. - [x] I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with `///`). - [x] I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is [test-exempt]. - [x] I followed the [breaking change policy] and added [Data Driven Fixes] where supported. - [x] All existing and new tests are passing. 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](https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/docs/review-github-code). Comments from the `gemini-code-assist` bot 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. <!-- Links --> [Contributor Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#overview [Tree Hygiene]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md [test-exempt]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#tests [Flutter Style Guide]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md [Features we expect every widget to implement]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Style-guide-for-Flutter-repo.md#features-we-expect-every-widget-to-implement [CLA]: https://cla.developers.google.com/ [flutter/tests]: https://github.com/flutter/tests [breaking change policy]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Tree-hygiene.md#handling-breaking-changes [Discord]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Chat.md [Data Driven Fixes]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/blob/main/docs/contributing/Data-driven-Fixes.md
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Replace this paragraph with a description of what this PR is changing or adding, and why. Consider including before/after screenshots.
List which issues are fixed by this PR. You must list at least one issue.
Pre-Review Checklist
[shared_preferences]pubspec.yamlwith an appropriate new version according to the pub versioning philosophy, or I have commented below to indicate which version change exemption this PR falls under1.CHANGELOG.mdto add a description of the change, following repository CHANGELOG style, or I have commented below to indicate which CHANGELOG exemption this PR falls under1.///).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 ↩3