[WIP] Applied Gradle Plugins Declaratively for `path_provider`
Updated applying gradle plugins from usage of imperative apply to usage of declarative blocks {} apply. Intending on updating all android example apps under packages. Did one more as a proof of concept before doing more.
More information on Flutter Gradle Plugin Apply here
Partially addresses #152656
Pre-launch Checklist
- [x] I read the Contributor Guide and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs.
- [x] I read the Tree Hygiene page, which explains my responsibilities.
- [x] I read and followed the relevant style guides and ran the auto-formatter. (Unlike the flutter/flutter repo, the flutter/packages repo does use
dart format.) - [x] I signed the CLA.
- [x] The title of the PR starts with the name of the package surrounded by square brackets, e.g.
[shared_preferences] - [x] I linked to at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above.
- [x] I updated
pubspec.yamlwith an appropriate new version according to the pub versioning philosophy, or this PR is exempt from version changes. - [x] I updated
CHANGELOG.mdto add a description of the change, following repository CHANGELOG style, or this PR is exempt from CHANGELOG changes. - [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] All existing and new tests are passing.
If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on Discord.
It looks like this pull request may not have tests. Please make sure to add tests before merging. If you need an exemption, contact "@test-exemption-reviewer" in the #hackers channel in Discord (don't just cc them here, they won't see it!).
If you are not sure if you need tests, consider this rule of thumb: the purpose of a test is to make sure someone doesn't accidentally revert the fix. Ask yourself, is there anything in your PR that you feel it is important we not accidentally revert back to how it was before your fix?
Reviewers: Read the Tree Hygiene page and make sure this patch meets those guidelines before LGTMing. The test exemption team is a small volunteer group, so all reviewers should feel empowered to ask for tests, without delegating that responsibility entirely to the test exemption group.
Looks like this change triggers a new check on the existing targetSdkVersion value?
Looks like this change triggers a new check on the existing
targetSdkVersionvalue?
Yeah, I think the current targetSdkVersion is outdated. I'm just going to update it to 35 (most recent one)