[many] Remove dependency on kotlin-bom

[gmackall]

This dependency seems to no longer be necessary. I expected this would be because the the androidx upgrade that landed recently fixed the problem (see theory), but it seems that the packages even build on stable successfully. Perhaps there have been updates to the underlying androidx libraries themselves that fix the conflict, and we updated the versions in plugins far enough? I'm unsure.

Updated for 3.24 release.

In a sense, fixes flutter/flutter#125062

Pre-launch Checklist

• I read the Contributor Guide and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs.
• I read the Tree Hygiene page, which explains my responsibilities.
• 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.)
• I signed the CLA.
• The title of the PR starts with the name of the package surrounded by square brackets, e.g. [shared_preferences]
• I linked to at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above.
• I updated pubspec.yaml with an appropriate new version according to the pub versioning philosophy, or this PR is exempt from version changes.
• I updated CHANGELOG.md to add a description of the change, following repository CHANGELOG style, or this PR is exempt from CHANGELOG changes.
• I updated/added relevant documentation (doc comments with ///).
• I added new tests to check the change I am making, or this PR is test-exempt.
• All existing and new tests are passing.

If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on Discord.

[gmackall]

Expecting tests to fail on stable, will need to wait until stable contains flutter/engine#53592, aka contains flutter/flutter#150952. This should be 3.24. The tests seem to pass on stable as well?

Tested that the example app for each modified package builds on master still.

[flutter-dashboard]

It looks like this pull request may not have tests. Please make sure to add tests before merging. If you need an exemption to this rule, contact "@test-exemption-reviewer" in the #hackers channel in Chat (don't just cc them here, they won't see it! Use Discord!).

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.

[stuartmorgan]

test-exempt: configuration change

[camsim99]

Woohoo!

[stuartmorgan]

#3960 suggests that we weren't catching this problem in CI. Given that, are we confident that we would catch it now (i.e., that the green result here is actually telling us what we need to know)? Can we try manually re-creating (on stable) some things like what's described in that PR description?

[gmackall]

#3960 suggests that we weren't catching this problem in CI. Given that, are we confident that we would catch it now (i.e., that the green result here is actually telling us what we need to know)? Can we try manually re-creating (on stable) some things like what's described in that PR description?

This is a good question, I'll try with a workflow similar to what I described in that PR for all the affected packages on stable.

If I had to guess why we didn't catch this in ci for camerax (and it really is a guess) it would be that the all_packages app maybe already had the workaround included in one of the packages, which fixed it for the app, and perhaps the camerax example was also depending on a plugin that had the fix (but only the example, not the plugin itself). Anyways I'll double check all the plugins.

[gmackall]

Hmm okay, yeah the workflow described in the PR:

1. flutter create sample
2. Add a dependency on the locally changed plugin to the pubspec
3. flutter build apk

Fails on stable, while succeeding on master. So this will indeed have to wait for the next stable. I'll also try to figure out why the all_packages/example apps aren't catching this in the meantime - I don't know why they wouldn't, but it's clear they aren't.

[reidbaker]

approve % next stable being set at the minimum

[gmackall]

This should be ready for review again for any remaining reviewers that want to take a look.

[flutter-dashboard]

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.

[stuartmorgan]

LGTM

[bparrishMines]

LGTM