Handle Android camera permissions error code

[camsim99]

Handles the new camera permissions code for Android that represents an ongoing request that was introduced in PR #5640.

Part of Issue #101384.

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/plugins repo does use dart format.)
• I signed the CLA.
• The title of the PR starts with the name of the plugin 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.

[camsim99]

@stuartmorgan Reading through the wiki, it seems like this PR should be reviewed first? Then the changes with camera_android and camera_web, and then the version bumps of camera_android and camera_web with the camera changes to follow. Is that correct?

[bparrishMines]

@camsim99 This still needs a test, right? I can review it once it has one.

[camsim99]

This was a duplicate test (see test right below), so I just modified this one.

[stuartmorgan]

@stuartmorgan Reading through the wiki, it seems like this PR should be reviewed first? Then the changes with camera_android and camera_web, and then the version bumps of camera_android and camera_web with the camera changes to follow. Is that correct?

This PR isn't changing any interfaces, so there doesn't need to be any chaining for PRs AFAICT.

I don't think we even need this PR though, since none of our implementations should be using the default method channel implementation now. Do we need to change the behavior of third-party camera implementations? If not, you can just skip this unless I'm missing something.