[google_fonts] Fix file type priority in asset path lookup

[Frank3K]

Description

Follow-up to #10703 which added WOFF/WOFF2 support for web.

The previous implementation iterated through manifest assets first, then checked file extensions. This meant if a .ttf file appeared before a .woff2 file in the manifest, the .ttf would be selected even though .woff2 should be preferred on web.

This fix inverts the loop order to iterate by file type priority first (woff2 > woff > ttf > otf on web), ensuring the preferred format is selected regardless of manifest order.

---

While working on #10703 I already looked at the specific for-loop, but not immediately notice this might be an issue. For Flutter projects with web-only support it is not; one can just include the woff2 fonts only. But for cross-platform projects it is an issue. Sample from an assets.gen.dart file:

  /// File path: assets/google_fonts/Roboto-Regular.ttf
  String get robotoRegularTtf => 'assets/google_fonts/Roboto-Regular.ttf';

  /// File path: assets/google_fonts/Roboto-Regular.woff2
  String get robotoRegularWoff2 => 'assets/google_fonts/Roboto-Regular.woff2';

With the old loop, the .ttf would be selected, even though a better alternative (the .woff2) is present.

Pre-Review Checklist

• I read the Contributor Guide and followed the process outlined there for submitting PRs.
• 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.
• 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 updated pubspec.yaml with an appropriate new version according to the pub versioning philosophy, or I have commented below to indicate which version change exemption this PR falls under¹.
• I updated CHANGELOG.md to add a description of the change, following repository CHANGELOG style, or I have commented below to indicate which CHANGELOG exemption this PR falls under¹.
• I updated/added any relevant documentation (doc comments with ///).
• 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.
• All existing and new tests are passing.

If you need help, consider asking for advice on the #hackers-new channel on Discord.

Note: The Flutter team is currently trialing the use of Gemini Code Assist for GitHub. Comments from the gemini-code-assist bot should not be taken as authoritative feedback from the Flutter team. If you find its comments useful you can update your code accordingly, but if you are unsure or disagree with the feedback, please feel free to wait for a Flutter team member's review for guidance on which automated comments 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. ↩ ↩² ↩³

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request fixes a bug in how bundled font assets are selected. The logic in findFamilyWithVariantAssetPath has been changed to prioritize more optimized font formats (like WOFF2/WOFF on web) over others, regardless of their order in the asset manifest. This is achieved by iterating through a list of preferred file types first, then searching the manifest for a matching asset. The change is supported by an updated test to verify the new behavior, a version bump to 8.0.1, and a corresponding changelog entry.

[Frank3K]

@guidezpl This is a bug fix for #10703, which you reviewed last week. Could you take a look at this fix?

[guidezpl]

This is consistent with guidance on asset manifests which says that the order doesn't matter

██╗      ██████╗ ████████╗███╗   ███╗
██║     ██╔════╝ ╚══██╔══╝████╗ ████║
██║     ██║  ███╗   ██║   ██╔████╔██║
██║     ██║   ██║   ██║   ██║╚██╔╝██║
███████╗╚██████╔╝   ██║   ██║ ╚═╝ ██║
╚══════╝ ╚═════╝    ╚═╝   ╚═╝     ╚═╝

[stuartmorgan-g]

@Frank3K While waiting for the secondary review, the analyzer issue that's causing CI failures will need to be fixed before this can land.

[Piinks]

This LGTM! Thank you! Once the failures in CI are addressed, we can land this. 👍