[ci] Allow warnings during podspec lint check #9428
Conversation
|
Wouldn't this also allow warnings that are podspec-level warnings rather than code-level warnings? In pratice, if things don't fail CI, people almost never look at the output, so "allow warnings" is, from the standpoint of preventing landing mistakes, essentially equivalent to "don't report warnings at all. I don't know offhand what the scope of things that cocoadpods itself reports as errors vs warnings, so I don't know what non-code-analysis coverage we would lose here. Do we think this is better than |
@vashworth says:
|
|
I have a better idea: flutter/flutter#170437 (comment) |
…flutter#9746) Xcode 26 is showing deprecation usage as warnings: flutter/flutter#170437. These warnings are causing `podspec-check` to fail as these warnings are being treated as errors. To unblock testing Xcode 26 in CI, exclude the existing `exclude_xcode_deprecation` packages from the podspec check command. Currently used here: https://github.com/flutter/packages/blob/83ae18a4faf6cbd18138d6fe7a20859a28b84166/.ci/targets/ios_platform_tests.yaml#L21 https://github.com/flutter/packages/blob/83ae18a4faf6cbd18138d6fe7a20859a28b84166/.ci/targets/macos_platform_tests.yaml#L18 This isn't a perfect solution, as the podspec check will find more issues than just deprecation warnings (Swift 6 warnings, [for example](flutter/flutter#170439)), and this will prevent any warnings being discovered for these packages. However, I believe it's a better solution than flutter#9428 (not treating warnings as errors for any package) because NEW regression warnings in all other packages can be caught in presubmit. Closes flutter#9428 ## Pre-Review Checklist **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. [^1]: Regular contributors who have demonstrated familiarity with the repository guidelines only need to comment if the PR is not auto-exempted by repo tooling.
xcode-analyzeCI command handles catching code-level warnings. Allow warnings duringpod lib lintcommand since it's redundant and we have fewer knobs to turn there.See flutter/flutter#170437 (comment)
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.
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