Dependency override in pubspec.yaml ignored when pubspec_overrides.yaml exists

[scopendo]

Environment

• Dart version: 3.5.2
• OS kind and version: macOS 14.6.1
• Are you using the Chinese community mirror or a corporate firewall? No

Problem

We commonly use a pubspec_overrides.yaml file during development to set a relative path to internal packages (in different repositories) that our app depends on, leaving the pubspec.yaml set to a git URL to not break builds on our CI server. We don't commit pubspec_overrides.yaml.

Occasionally, we use the dependency_overrides section of the pubspec.yaml to force a later version of a third-party dependency, which is needed on our CI server. This override is ignored by dart pub get|upgrade unless it is repeated in the pubspec_overrides.yaml file. This is cumbersome and can be error-prone.

pubspec.yaml

name: example
description: Example App
publish_to: "none"
version: 1.0.0

environment:
  sdk: ">=3.0.0 <4.0.0"

dependencies:
  ...
  firebase_core: ^2.32.0

  flutter:
    sdk: flutter

  example_common:
    git:
      url: ssh://[email protected]/example/example-common.git
      ref: v1.0.0
   ...

dependency_overrides:
  # This override will be ignored if it's not specified in pubspec_overrides.yaml
  firebase_core: ^3.2.0

pubspec_overrides

dependency_overrides:
  example_common:
    path: ../example_common

  # The override of firebase_core in pubspec.yaml will be ignored unless also specified here
  firebase_core: ^3.2.0

Expected behavior

I expected that the dependency overrides in pubspec_overrides.yaml would complement overrides in pubspec.yaml.

Actual behavior

The dependency overrides in pubspec.yaml are ignored.

[sigurdm]

This is working as intended. (Otherwise you could not remove overrides with a pubspec_overrides.yaml file).

Maybe we could communicate better if there are overrides in both places.

[scopendo]

With respect, that seems to be optimising for the less likely case, which could also be handled by setting the override accordingly.

…

On Thu, 26 Sept 2024, 09:24 Sigurd Meldgaard, ***@***.***> wrote: This is working as intended. (Otherwise you could not remove overrides with a pubspec_overrides.yaml file). Maybe we could communicate better if there are overrides in both places. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4387 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAE6N6UIN2XL7ZNFUNBVSSDZYPAFPAVCNFSM6AAAAABODJG5J2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGNZWGI4DCNRSGY> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[sigurdm]

which could also be handled by setting the override accordingly.

Not sure I get how this would be done.
Say foo is overridden in pubspec.yaml. How would you create a pubspec_overrides.yaml that removes the override?

I vaguely remember us discussing this, and deciding this was the most useful and predictable behavior. It seems to me simpler that a field in pubspec_overrides replaces the same field in pubspec.yaml, not merging with it.

I can fully see how there are cases where you desire the merging behavior.

However I doubt that we are going to break this.