Konstantin Scheglov

I can reproduce it with ```dart solo_test_X() async { newFile('$testPackageLibPath/a.dart', r''' mixin '''); newFile('$testPackageLibPath/b.dart', r''' mixin '''); await assertErrorsInCode(r''' import 'a.dart'; import 'b.dart'; /// Test '[' it. void f() {}...

I think this is less serous issue than we thought originally, so set the priority accordingly.

I don't remember any recent changes here. I see that `package:zory/providers.dart` is removed because of pending file changes, probably because a file in its transitive dependencies was changed. My understanding...

> old LibraryElement(s) were still valid? Not quite. We load libraries from summaries incrementally, so that we don't spend time and heap loading elements that are never used. But we...

> cc @scheglov - any concerns about landing this here? You might need to handle import conflicts when this version gets pulled in to the SDK. https://dart-review.googlesource.com/c/sdk/+/346163 renames these methods...

Note also that the current approach to run macros in analyzer and DAS is to compile them into kernel files, and run in the same process.

Of course it is not that easy. We need also invoking optional `setUp()` and `tearDown()`, await if the method returns a `Future`, include methods from mixins, support for `solo_test_` and...

I almost exclusively run either one test file, or a set of `solo_test_` methods in this one file, or all tests in `analyzer/`. As long as these scenarios work, I'd...

With this change everything works fine for me. The presentation is obviously slightly different ``` 00:12 +8985: analyzer | generated | SimpleResolverTest | test_argumentResolution_requiredAndNamed_extra ``` vs new ``` 00:14 +8983:...

It will probably look bad in VS Code then, which is the point of this change :-)