Fix wrong import for method parameters with default value factories

[kuhnroyal]

• Fixes problem described in Mocking a moor database fails #459 around factory redirects into different source files/imports
• add tests
• gitignore build folder and generated mock test files

Fixes #459

[srawlins]

I like the idea here, but I think that the parameter element is not sufficient to choosing the right element to reference. For example, here is a test (that you can insert into auto_mocks_test.dart) which does not pass with this fix:

  test(
      'matches parameter default values constructed from a const factory '
      'constructor2', () async {
    var mocksContent = await buildWithNonNullable({
      ...annotationsAsset,
      ...simpleTestAsset,
      'foo|lib/foo.dart': '''
      import 'baz.dart';
      class Foo {
        void m([Bar a = const Baz.named()]) {}
      }
      class Bar {
        const Bar();
      }
      ''',
      'foo|lib/baz.dart': '''
      import 'foo.dart';
      import 'quux.dart';
      class Baz implements Bar {
        const factory Baz.named() = Quux;
      }
      ''',
      'foo|lib/quux.dart': '''
      import 'baz.dart';
      class Quux implements Baz {
        const Quux();
      }
      ''',
    });
    expect(mocksContent,
        contains('void m([_i2.Bar? a = const _i3.Baz.named()]) =>'));
  });

The idea is:

• the parameter comes from one library,
• the factory constructor for the default value comes from a second library,
• the constant value that the factory constructor gives comes from a third library.

I think the fix needs to be made in source_gen.

[kuhnroyal]

Yea I didn't think of 3 levels/interface. The information is just not available at that point. I am not sure it would be correct for computeConstantValue() to return the type of the factory location. So there probably needs to be something new like Revivable.type which can be different from the DartObject which was created with computeConstantValue().

I still think the workaround via the ParameterElement may be helpful for a fair amount of these cases.

[srawlins]

One comment

[srawlins]

Would you mind rebasing once as well? Thanks!

[srawlins]

I think your code became unformatted with the sync.

[srawlins]

Thanks much! I think this is definitely an improvement (especially with the real world example).