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.

This is a reasonable idea for a feature however changing the opacity of the inkwell's child isn't consistent with the way the disabled state is handled in other widgets, it can't be overridden and there's no theme entry. It shouldn't be possible to tab into a disabled destination or to control it with the keyboard. And PRs need tests.

Hello @HansMuller.

This is a reasonable idea for a feature however changing the opacity of the inkwell's child isn't consistent with the way the disabled state is handled in other widgets

Agreed, I stated that in the issue I opened, I just wanted to present the problem, I will see if I can read about it and implement it tonight.

it can't be overridden and there's no theme entry

What do you mean by that?

It shouldn't be possible to tab into a disabled destination or to control it with the keyboard

That is handled by the pull request since the ink well is the only thing that makes it targetable.

And PRs need tests

Sure, I will write one, now just to be sure, it has to just check if the disabled flag is making the InkWell non clickable?

@HansMuller I added the tests and changed the custom opacity code to do the same thing the ButtonStyle does, which is use the onSurface color with 0.38 opacity