Removing DownloadInfoTest

Removing DownloadInfoTest

It doesn't make sense to have DownloadInfoTest with upcoming ProGuard
changes. It doesn't check any meaningful functionality (just that all
setters correspond to getters, and that running all getters on a copied
object all return the same values) and relies on getting the method's
names via reflection, which is going to cause a lot of issues as
ProGuard usage increases.

BUG=620323
Committed: https://crrev.com/770c0cfd44f0a28c07c0f76ad6059f334d056b02
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408397}

[smaier, 2016-07-28 14:32:35]

The CQ bit was checked by smaier@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[smaier, 2016-07-28 14:32:53]

smaier@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ agrieve@chromium.org, yfriedman@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-28 14:32:54]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[agrieve, 2016-07-28 15:00:08]

Description was changed from

==========
Removing DownloadInfoTest

It doesn't make sense to have DownloadInfoTest with upcoming ProGuard
changes. It doesn't check any meaningful functionality (just that all
setters correspond to getters, and that running all getters on a copied
object all return the same values) and relies on getting the method's
names via reflection, which is going to cause a lot of issues as
ProGuard usage increases.

BUG=620323
==========

to

==========
Removing DownloadInfoTest

It doesn't make sense to have DownloadInfoTest with upcoming ProGuard
changes. It doesn't check any meaningful functionality (just that all
setters correspond to getters, and that running all getters on a copied
object all return the same values) and relies on getting the method's
names via reflection, which is going to cause a lot of issues as
ProGuard usage increases.

BUG=620323
==========

[agrieve, 2016-07-28 15:00:08]

agrieve@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ bauerb@chromium.org
- yfriedman@chromium.org

[agrieve, 2016-07-28 15:00:41]

On 2016/07/28 14:32:53, smaier wrote:

lgtm

+bauerb for owners

[Bernhard Bauer, 2016-07-28 15:05:27]

rubberstamp LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-28 15:19:09]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-28 15:19:10]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[smaier, 2016-07-28 15:27:32]

The CQ bit was checked by smaier@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-28 15:27:39]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-28 15:40:06]

Description was changed from

==========
Removing DownloadInfoTest

It doesn't make sense to have DownloadInfoTest with upcoming ProGuard
changes. It doesn't check any meaningful functionality (just that all
setters correspond to getters, and that running all getters on a copied
object all return the same values) and relies on getting the method's
names via reflection, which is going to cause a lot of issues as
ProGuard usage increases.

BUG=620323
==========

to

==========
Removing DownloadInfoTest

It doesn't make sense to have DownloadInfoTest with upcoming ProGuard
changes. It doesn't check any meaningful functionality (just that all
setters correspond to getters, and that running all getters on a copied
object all return the same values) and relies on getting the method's
names via reflection, which is going to cause a lot of issues as
ProGuard usage increases.

BUG=620323
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-28 15:40:07]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-28 15:41:57]

Description was changed from

==========
Removing DownloadInfoTest

It doesn't make sense to have DownloadInfoTest with upcoming ProGuard
changes. It doesn't check any meaningful functionality (just that all
setters correspond to getters, and that running all getters on a copied
object all return the same values) and relies on getting the method's
names via reflection, which is going to cause a lot of issues as
ProGuard usage increases.

BUG=620323
==========

to

==========
Removing DownloadInfoTest

It doesn't make sense to have DownloadInfoTest with upcoming ProGuard
changes. It doesn't check any meaningful functionality (just that all
setters correspond to getters, and that running all getters on a copied
object all return the same values) and relies on getting the method's
names via reflection, which is going to cause a lot of issues as
ProGuard usage increases.

BUG=620323

Committed: https://crrev.com/770c0cfd44f0a28c07c0f76ad6059f334d056b02
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408397}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-07-28 15:41:58]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/770c0cfd44f0a28c07c0f76ad6059f334d056b02
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#408397}