PANA formatting issues incoherent

[FMorschel]

I just published https://pub.dev/packages/essential_lints v0.1.2+1. Now PANA is finished, and I got:

40/50 points: code has no errors, warnings, lints, or formatting issues

Found 24 issues. Showing the first 2:

The log: https://pub.dev/packages/essential_lints/score/log.txt

Now, the thing here is, the commit is FMorschel/essential_lints@97249f7.

After running dart format . I do get some files changing, but the first two, which are mentioned above, are not on the list (the ones inside the red rectangle are inside the published package in question):

Considering #9119, I think this should be looked at.

[sigurdm]

The analysis_options file in essential lints seem to include a file from outside the package. This will obviously not work on pub.

Are there any formatting options in the analysis options you include?

[FMorschel]

No. Nothing of the sorts. Weirdly, after I ran that dart format on the screenshot and published a new version with some fixes, that error vanished. So maybe the error was incorrectly stating the wrong files?

[sigurdm]

Sounds weird. Why would it get a different result?

Grasping for straws: Are you running the same version of the dart sdk for formatting? (3.10.4)

@isoos do you have a clue what could be going on?

[FMorschel]

Are you running the same version of the dart sdk for formatting? (3.10.4)

No, I'm, using master. But I did try running dart format . with that version, and no change around those files happened.

[isoos]

No. Nothing of the sorts. Weirdly, after I ran that dart format on the screenshot and published a new version with some fixes, that error vanished. So maybe the error was incorrectly stating the wrong files?

I think this is related to the #1535 and its fix in #1536. After that gets fixed, the report will be:

## ✗ Pass static analysis (40 / 50)
### [~] 40/50 points: code has no errors, warnings, lints, or formatting issues

Found 23 issues. Showing the first 2:

<details>
<summary>
lib/src/assist/essential_lint_assists.dart doesn't match the Dart formatter.
</summary>

To format your files run: `dart format .`
</details>

<details>
<summary>
lib/src/assist/remove_useless_else.dart doesn't match the Dart formatter.
</summary>

To format your files run: `dart format .`
</details>

The difference here comes from the application of the analysis_options format rule from:
https://github.com/VeryGoodOpenSource/very_good_analysis/blob/main/lib/analysis_options.10.1.0.yaml#L19-L20

Right now there seem to be two barriers to apply it on pub-dev:
(1) the package archive only has an analysis_options.yaml which points outside, and we don't have your repository-level options file:

include: ../analysis_options.yaml

(2) even if we did, right now pub.dev runs on restricted mode with custom analysis-option imports, and we wouldn't transiently apply the rule (we are working on a new method to apply it though).

As a fix for now, I'd suggest to include the above formatting rule in your package-level analysis_options.yaml file, so that pub.dev sees it. In the future we hope that you would only need to fix (1) and pub.dev fixes (2).