updated functions to pass all params

[abdelaziz-mahdy]

only did the core.dart for now fix https://github.com/rainyl/opencv_dart/issues/180

[rainyl]

• Breaking Change: Mat.add, Mat.subtract, Mat.multiply, Mat.divide and corresponding U8 I8 U16 I16 I32 F32 F64 methods are exactly operator +, operator - operator * operator / for cv::Mat now. Basically they are same as before, BUT Mat.multiply<Mat>() and Mat.multiplyMat() now will perform a Matrix Multiplication instead of a element-wise multiplication, use Mat.mul for element-wise, this behavior is same as opencv. NOTE: Matrix multiplication in opencv only support CV_32FC1, CV_32FC2, CV_64FC1, CV_64FC2, if you see some exception like CvException(code: -215, err: , msg:OpenCV(4.10.0) D:\a\opencv.full\opencv.full\build\opencv\modules\core\src\matmul.dispatch.cpp:356: error: (-215:Assertion failed) (type == (((5) & ((1 << 3) - 1)) + (((1)-1) << 3)) || type == (((6) & ((1 << 3) - 1)) + (((1)-1) << 3)) || type == (((5) & ((1 << 3) - 1)) + (((2)-1) << 3)) || type == (((6) & ((1 << 3) - 1)) + (((2)-1) << 3))) in function 'cv::gemm' ) in cv::gemm of file D:\a\opencv.full\opencv.full\build\opencv\modules\core\src\matmul.dispatch.cpp:356, please check your mat type.
• Breaking Change: Mat add(Mat src1, Mat src2, [Mat? dst]) -> Mat add(Mat src1, Mat src2, {Mat? dst, int dtype = -1, Mat? mask})
• Add I16 and U16 support for Mat operators

[abdelaziz-mahdy]

Do you think we should add more tests to test the functionality of the optional parameters?

[rainyl]

Do you think we should add more tests to test the functionality of the optional parameters?

Not really, optional parameters have default values, which will be passed to native C functions, it's fine to just keep them same as C++ default values and no more extra tests needed.

But if you think they are necessary, you can add more tests and I am willing to accept 😄

And, thanks for your contributions! 🎉

[abdelaziz-mahdy]

Do you think we should add more tests to test the functionality of the optional parameters?

Not really, optional parameters have default values, which will be passed to native C functions, it's fine to just keep them same as C++ default values and no more extra tests needed.

But if you think they are necessary, you can add more tests and I am willing to accept 😄

And, thanks for your contributions! 🎉

Thank you for being supportive I enjoy contributing to this project ❤️

Also my point for tests was that we make sure that future changes won't break the the optional parameters being passed down correctly, like the reason this issue came up in the first place is that the tests were not covering the changes done by optional parameters

[rainyl]

Also my point for tests was that we make sure that future changes won't break the the optional parameters being passed down correctly, like the reason this issue came up in the first place is that the tests were not covering the changes done by optional parameters

Oh I agree with you now, more covered conditions will make this package more robust, just add more tests when you are free, since I am kind of busy recently. 😄