[video_player] Add optional web options [Platform interface]

[defuncart]

Platform Interface PR for Video Player Web Options (#3259).

Pre-launch Checklist

• I read the Contributor Guide and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs.
• I read the Tree Hygiene wiki 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 listed 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.
• 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 Hixie on the #hackers channel in Chat (don't just cc him here, he won't see it! He's on 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.

[defuncart]

@ditman Platform Interface PR for Video Player Web Options (#3259).

[tarrinneal]

Do you intend to add tests to this pr? I don't believe the original pr included tests either. I didn't see an exemption, but I may have missed it.

[ditman]

@defuncart Tests can be easily added here:

• https://github.com/flutter/packages/tree/main/packages/video_player/video_player_platform_interface/test

Even if it's to expect an unimplemented error when calling the (unimplemented in this package) method, or the default values of the new types, no need to exempt this package from tests.

[defuncart]

@tarrinneal @ditman Added tests 🧪

[ditman]

This needs to be published to be used by others, so I'd suggest:

Suggested change

	## NEXT
	## 6.2.0

(It will also require a change to the version field of the pubspec.yaml of the package.)

((Addressing the versioning of the package should fix the current repo_checks problem.))

[defuncart]

I'm not sure why the ci keeps failing

6.1.0 -> 6.2.0
When bumping the version for release, the NEXT section should be incorporated into the new version's release notes.

As suggested, I tried

## NEXT
## 6.2.0

but the pipeline also failed. Any ideas? @ditman @tarrinneal

[ditman]

When bumping the version for release, the NEXT section should be incorporated into the new version's release notes.

@defuncart, I think the confusing bit here is that ## NEXT is not something that gets automatically populated by our tooling when this gets published or anything, it's just a mark for our tools that means: "I'm adding a change to this repo that doesn't need to be published immediately, and can be deferred to the NEXT time somebody releases something, but that it's interesting for end users to know about." :)

The solution to the error is to completely remove ## NEXT and replace it by the version value being set in the pubspec.yaml (in this case ## NEXT -> ## 6.2.0).

I think that should make CI happy!

[ditman]

LGTM!

[ditman]

(We need a second review for this PR to land, I think. /cc @tarrinneal for whenever you have a few mins!)

[tarrinneal]

Just a couple comment nits and I can approve

[defuncart]

Thanks @ditman. Updated spelling @tarrinneal.