[pointer_interceptor] Adopt code-excerpts for README

[danielleon-cmd]

Replaces the hand-written Dart snippets in pointer_interceptor's README with <?code-excerpt?> pragmas backed by a new example/lib/readme_excerpts.dart, so the README's examples are validated against compilable, analyzed source (update-excerpts --fail-on-change) instead of free-hand text. One of the previous snippets was actually invalid Dart (a stray trailing comma), which this now catches. Also removes the package's ci_config.yaml, whose only content was exempt_from_excerpts: true, now that the excerpt validation actually runs and passes.

Part of flutter/flutter#102679.

Pre-Review Checklist

• I read the Contributor Guide and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs.
• I read the AI contribution guidelines and understand my responsibilities, or I am not using AI tools.
• I read the Tree Hygiene page, which explains my responsibilities.
• I read and followed the relevant style guides and ran the auto-formatter.
• I signed the CLA. — pending; the CLA bot flagged this as a first-time contribution from this account.
• The title of the PR starts with the name of the package surrounded by square brackets, e.g. [shared_preferences]
• I linked to at least one issue that this PR fixes in the description above.
• I followed the version and CHANGELOG instructions, using semantic versioning and the repository CHANGELOG style (bumped to 0.10.1+3).
• I updated/added any relevant documentation (doc comments with ///). — not applicable, no public API surface changed.
• I added new tests to check the change I am making, or I have commented below to indicate which test exemption this PR falls under¹. — documentation-only change: the new readme_excerpts.dart is validated by dart analyze/dart format and the update-excerpts --fail-on-change check itself, which is the point of this change; no runtime behavior changed.
• All existing and new tests are passing.

Test plan

• dart run script/tool/bin/flutter_plugin_tools.dart update-excerpts --fail-on-change --packages pointer_interceptor
• dart run script/tool/bin/flutter_plugin_tools.dart validate --packages pointer_interceptor/pointer_interceptor (excerpt validation now runs, not skipped)
• dart run script/tool/bin/flutter_plugin_tools.dart analyze --packages pointer_interceptor/pointer_interceptor
• dart format --output=none --set-exit-if-changed on the new source file

Note: The Flutter team is currently trialing Gemini Code Assist for GitHub. Comments from gemini-code-assist[bot] aren't authoritative Flutter-team feedback; I'll wait for a human reviewer's guidance on which automated comments (if any) should be addressed.

Footnotes

1. Regular contributors who have demonstrated familiarity with the repository guidelines only need to comment if the PR is not auto-exempted by repo tooling. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adopts code-excerpt for the pointer_interceptor README's Dart snippets, moving the code examples into a new compilable file readme_excerpts.dart and updating the package version to 0.10.1+3. Additionally, it adds Swift unit tests to quick_actions_ios for setting shortcut items with multiple items or without an icon, and to url_launcher_ios for handling Safari view controller launch failures with invalid URLs. There are no review comments, and no feedback is provided.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adopts code-excerpt for the pointer_interceptor package's README Dart snippets. It adds a new file readme_excerpts.dart containing compilable Dart snippets, updates the README to reference these excerpts, removes the exempt_from_excerpts configuration, and bumps the package version to 0.10.1+3. There are no review comments, and I have no feedback to provide.

[flutter-dashboard]

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.

[danielleon-cmd]

No NEED for tests since it is just a plain documentation