fix(plugin-local-electron): Make the plugin compatible on Windows, and can live with other plugins

[reitowo]

• I have read the contribution documentation for this project.
• I agree to follow the code of conduct that this project follows, as appropriate.
• The changes are appropriately documented (if applicable).
• The changes have sufficient test coverage (if applicable).
• The testsuite passes successfully on my local machine (if applicable).

Summarize your changes:

The plugin-local-electron currently cannot work with plugin-vite (or any other plugin) because it claims startLogic, which is unnecessary because it just merely set the ELECTRON_OVERRIDE_DIST_PATH env var.

This PR:

1. Moved this logic to init function instead of startLogic
2. Changed function locateElectronExecutable to detect this ELECTRON_OVERRIDE_DIST_PATH env var to make the project directly starts the binary in the wanted path. (Because on Windows this env variable makes no effect and still launch the binary under node_modules...)

[reitowo]

@caoxiemeihao Can I bother you review this?

[reitowo]

@VerteDinde Can you review this PR?😘

[BlackHole1]

The changes here seem unnecessary because init and startLogic are responsible for different things. init is responsible for initializing the template, while startLogic is responsible for starting Electron. So I didn't quite understand the modifications here. Could you please explain in detail the necessity of these changes?

[reitowo]

This plugin merely just set the environment variable, and using startLogic will prevent it from using with other plugins like vite.
This could go to constructor if init is not a right place to go.

[BlackHole1]

I'm not very familiar with this piece of code. Perhaps other people might have some suggestions.
@caoxiemeihao @electron/forgers PLAT

[BlackHole1]

This is duplicated with the existing code. See:

forge/packages/plugin/local-electron/test/LocalElectronPlugin_spec.ts

Lines 16 to 18 in a62c2a1

	afterEach(() => {
	delete process.env.ELECTRON_OVERRIDE_DIST_PATH;
	});

[reitowo]

It is not, because the delete you referenced is in the other scope.

[BlackHole1]

Ah, my bad for not catching that! Would it be better to use afterEach?