Phil Quitslund

> A solution could be to update the lint rule so that it checks that the declaration of the parameter it required. Is there a test case I can use...

Great points! > On the other hand, that would be a good candidate for the invariant_booleans lint, My only hesitation is that `invariant_booleans` is already quite tricky and arguably over-reporting...

We have a few lints in the vicinity: [no_adjacent_strings_in_list](https://dart-lang.github.io/linter/lints/no_adjacent_strings_in_list.html) and [prefer_adjacent_string_concatenation](https://dart-lang.github.io/linter/lints/prefer_adjacent_string_concatenation.html)

@lrhn's proposal sounds reasonable to me. (/cc @natebosch, @jakemac53 for possible opinions.)

/cc @goderbauer

My biggest concern on this is the time to migrate internal code that will break when we try and roll with this landed. I'm guessing that the `AddTrailingComma` correction producer...

This is another one that will likely require a bunch of internal cleanup before landing in the SDK. I'm a bit oversubscribed at the moment but will put the feelers...

fyi @srawlins who's fixed a bunch of issues in this one recently.

Fantastic. We'll need to do an internal dry-run regardless , but if I understand the change correctly, this just addresses false-positives?

> Yes it should relax the original version. So it shouldn't add new diagnostics. Add? If these are false positives, I'd expect there to be **_fewer_**... Sorry if I'm being...