[google_maps_flutter] remove warning when cloudMapId is used

[cedvdb]

fix #fix #149060
should be test-exempt, just warning removal.

List which issues are fixed by this PR. You must list at least one issue.

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.

[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.

[cedvdb]

@ditman can this be test exempted ?

[stuartmorgan-g]

should be test-exempt, just warning removal

The reason this PR eliminates the warning is that it changes the behavior of the plugin; it is not exempt.

[cedvdb]

I'm not sure what behavior change you are referring to beside the log output ?
Maybe the fact that it is not passing styles anymore if the map ID is passed, which I thought was an implementation detail with no impact on behaviors. If this changes something which wasn't caught by existing tests, I'm not willing to dig deeper ( didn't dig much tbh) so I'm closing for now but may reopen in the future.

[stuartmorgan-g]

I'm not sure what behavior change you are referring to ?
Maybe the fact that it is not passing styles anymore if the map ID is passed

Yes, exactly.

which I thought was an implementation detail with no impact on behaviors.

It does have an impact on behavior though; calling the underlying API incorrectly is causing a warning. That's why the issue and the PR exist in the first place.

[cedvdb]

It does have an impact on behavior though; calling the underlying API incorrectly is causing a warning. That's why the issue and the PR exist in the first place.

It seems to me that it'd be more appropriate to test that there is no warning (the end user behavior). You probably have good reasons to suggest that alternative. I'm interested in having those reasons here in case I end up having some time for this in the future.

My guess is that testing for warnings would be harder to write. However this kind of test could be reused for other warnings, in other packages as well, so may be worth it. Not sure if there is a precedent to this (if not, I was thinking about monkey patching console.warn and console.error to emit events)

[stuartmorgan-g]

We want our tests to test the code we control. We control whether we are making a combination of API calls that the docs explicitly say we shouldn't. We don't control what the result of doing that is, whether it's a warning to the console or something else.

I was thinking about monkey patching console.warn and console.error to emit events

We don't want to intentionally introduce tests that are highly susceptible to out-of-band breakage due to changes in code we don't control.