It looks like this pull request may not have tests. Please make sure to add tests or get an explicit test exemption before merging.

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.If you believe this PR qualifies for a test exemption, contact "@test-exemption-reviewer" in the #hackers channel in Discord (don't just cc them here, they won't see it!). 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.

Hi,

any idea or pointers on how to fix this:

The following TestFailure was thrown running a test (but after
the test had completed):
Expected: throws <Instance of 'StateError'>
  Actual: <Closure: () => Future<Null> from: () => {
                            let t$goto = 0, t$completer =
async._makeAsyncAwaitCompleter(T.Null());
                            var t$36asyncBody =
async._wrapJsFunctionForAsync((t$errorCode, t$result) => {
                              if (t$errorCode === 1) return
async._asyncRethrow(t$result, t$completer);
                              while (true)
                                switch (t$goto) {
                                  case 0:
                                    // Function start
                                    t$goto = 2;
                                    return
async._asyncAwait(t$36$35plugin$35get().disconnect(C[8] ||
CT.C8), t$36asyncBody, t$completer);
                                  case 2:
                                    // returning from await.
                                    // implicit return
                                    return
async._asyncReturn(null, t$completer);
                                }
                            });
                            return
async._asyncStartSync(t$36asyncBody, t$completer);
                          }>
   Which: returned a Future that emitted <null>

When the exception was thrown, this was the stack:

its failing for the same reason in 3 of the tests and the repo check I know the issue which I will fix...

I'm not sure I understand the question. The expectations that check that calling a method without calling init throws a StateError are failing because you removed the code that throws the StateError if a method is called without calling init.

Oh so the changes in the PR is incorrect? Or something else needs to change?

Tests that expect that the web implementation asserts init completion everywhere are no longer valid if the web implementation no longer asserts init completion. Intentional behavioral changes often require changing tests.

Understood let me look at the code and see where the initCompleted is still be called in the test and remove those... Last I checked wasn't able to find any

From triage: Is this ready for review?

Yes its ready for review looks like I might need to fix the conflicts which I will get to

I made the changes based on what was put in the issue... What I got from it was since the logic has been moved outside the package the code for init seems redundant... I might have miss understood let me take a look based on the comments and try and incorporate it

@stuartmorgan-g what do other platforms do in this case?

Nothing; in the new version of google_sign_in, clients explicitly call an initialize method (rather than it being an internal, implicit thing on most platforms, but semi-exposed on web, as was the case before), and the docs say they must do so exactly once. It's a programming error by the client to write the code you've shown there.

If we think clients need explicit Errors when doing the wrong thing, that should be added to the app-facing package, rather than handled in each implementation. This code is a legacy of the exposed-for-web nature of the previous init code.

(Also, clients should basically never call the platform interface methods directly. That's not how most federated plugins are designed.)