Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code.

Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code.

Archived snippets are snippets that where replaced by another set of snippets that where fetched in the following background fetch. They are different from the set of the dismissed snippets (which are always excluded).

Exculding archived snippets seems to have essentally no effect. In order to simplify the code this is removed.

FYI: Due to refactorings the only code path that is no executed was to always exclude them. As mentioned above this CL is more agressive.

BUG=none

Committed: https://crrev.com/c11607a50691c6da823467bb389d14f659433c77
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#433852}

[markusheintz_, 2016-11-22 09:12:58]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code.

BUG=TBD
==========

to

==========
Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code.

BUG=TBD
==========

[markusheintz_, 2016-11-22 09:12:59]

markusheintz@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ treib@chromium.org, tschumann@chromium.org

[markusheintz_, 2016-11-22 09:18:15]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code.

BUG=TBD
==========

to

==========
Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code. 

Archived snippets are snippets that where replaced by another set of snippets
that where fetched in the following background fetch. They are different from
the set of the dismissed snippets (which are always excluded).

Exculding archived snippets seems to have essentally no effect. In order to
simplify the code this is removed.

FYI: Due to refactorings the only code path that is no executed was to always
exclude them. As mentioned above this CL is more agressive.

BUG=TBD
==========

[markusheintz_, 2016-11-22 09:18:34]

Is there a bug that I can use for small refactorings?

[tschumann, 2016-11-22 09:31:21]

On 2016/11/22 09:18:34, markusheintz_ wrote:
> Is there a bug that I can use for small refactorings?

it's not a refactoring as it changes behavior. Is a bug always required?

[markusheintz_, 2016-11-22 09:33:46]

On 2016/11/22 09:31:21, tschumann wrote:
> On 2016/11/22 09:18:34, markusheintz_ wrote:
> > Is there a bug that I can use for small refactorings?
> 
> it's not a refactoring as it changes behavior. Is a bug always required?

Sorry you are of course correct this is not a re-factoring.

No a bug is not always required.

[tschumann, 2016-11-22 09:37:45]

On 2016/11/22 09:33:46, markusheintz_ wrote:
> On 2016/11/22 09:31:21, tschumann wrote:
> > On 2016/11/22 09:18:34, markusheintz_ wrote:
> > > Is there a bug that I can use for small refactorings?
> > 
> > it's not a refactoring as it changes behavior. Is a bug always required?
> 
> Sorry you are of course correct this is not a re-factoring.
=) just being pedantic.
> 
> No a bug is not always required. 

In that case, I'm leaning towards not creating a bug as that would simply
duplicate the information of this CL description and create unnecessary noise.

[markusheintz_, 2016-11-22 09:39:18]

On 2016/11/22 09:37:45, tschumann wrote:
> On 2016/11/22 09:33:46, markusheintz_ wrote:
> > On 2016/11/22 09:31:21, tschumann wrote:
> > > On 2016/11/22 09:18:34, markusheintz_ wrote:
> > > > Is there a bug that I can use for small refactorings?
> > > 
> > > it's not a refactoring as it changes behavior. Is a bug always required?
> > 
> > Sorry you are of course correct this is not a re-factoring.
> =) just being pedantic.
> > 
> > No a bug is not always required. 
> 
> In that case, I'm leaning towards not creating a bug as that would simply
> duplicate the information of this CL description and create unnecessary noise.

LGTM

[tschumann, 2016-11-22 09:43:33]

lgtm

it's a shame that this code is not properly tested.
(The problem is that we don't have a nice abstraction in the test so that we can
mock out the snippets-fetcher and verify the passed parameters).

[markusheintz_, 2016-11-22 09:45:01]

On 2016/11/22 09:43:33, tschumann wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> it's a shame that this code is not properly tested.
> (The problem is that we don't have a nice abstraction in the test so that we
can
> mock out the snippets-fetcher and verify the passed parameters).

I agree I've put it on my list.

[Marc Treib, 2016-11-22 10:05:48]

LGTM

Re bug: I'm okay with not filing one, but then please put "BUG=none" in the
description.

[markusheintz_, 2016-11-22 11:12:33]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code. 

Archived snippets are snippets that where replaced by another set of snippets
that where fetched in the following background fetch. They are different from
the set of the dismissed snippets (which are always excluded).

Exculding archived snippets seems to have essentally no effect. In order to
simplify the code this is removed.

FYI: Due to refactorings the only code path that is no executed was to always
exclude them. As mentioned above this CL is more agressive.

BUG=TBD
==========

to

==========
Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code. 

Archived snippets are snippets that where replaced by another set of snippets
that where fetched in the following background fetch. They are different from
the set of the dismissed snippets (which are always excluded).

Exculding archived snippets seems to have essentally no effect. In order to
simplify the code this is removed.

FYI: Due to refactorings the only code path that is no executed was to always
exclude them. As mentioned above this CL is more agressive.

BUG=none
==========

[markusheintz_, 2016-11-22 11:54:53]

The CQ bit was checked by markusheintz@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-22 11:55:06]

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, 2016-11-22 14:09:02]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1479815693858260, "parent_rev":
"a57f22324d689b2588cea113b1dabf5e9e906fd7", "commit_rev":
"89613fbc70fcb3a02c62c0e6ac770197a7e087df"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-22 14:09:30]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code. 

Archived snippets are snippets that where replaced by another set of snippets
that where fetched in the following background fetch. They are different from
the set of the dismissed snippets (which are always excluded).

Exculding archived snippets seems to have essentally no effect. In order to
simplify the code this is removed.

FYI: Due to refactorings the only code path that is no executed was to always
exclude them. As mentioned above this CL is more agressive.

BUG=none
==========

to

==========
Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code. 

Archived snippets are snippets that where replaced by another set of snippets
that where fetched in the following background fetch. They are different from
the set of the dismissed snippets (which are always excluded).

Exculding archived snippets seems to have essentally no effect. In order to
simplify the code this is removed.

FYI: Due to refactorings the only code path that is no executed was to always
exclude them. As mentioned above this CL is more agressive.

BUG=none
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-22 14:09:31]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-22 14:13:24]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code. 

Archived snippets are snippets that where replaced by another set of snippets
that where fetched in the following background fetch. They are different from
the set of the dismissed snippets (which are always excluded).

Exculding archived snippets seems to have essentally no effect. In order to
simplify the code this is removed.

FYI: Due to refactorings the only code path that is no executed was to always
exclude them. As mentioned above this CL is more agressive.

BUG=none
==========

to

==========
Remove the "exclude archived snippets" from the snippets fetching code.

Archived snippets are snippets that where replaced by another set of snippets
that where fetched in the following background fetch. They are different from
the set of the dismissed snippets (which are always excluded).

Exculding archived snippets seems to have essentally no effect. In order to
simplify the code this is removed.

FYI: Due to refactorings the only code path that is no executed was to always
exclude them. As mentioned above this CL is more agressive.

BUG=none

Committed: https://crrev.com/c11607a50691c6da823467bb389d14f659433c77
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#433852}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-11-22 14:13:25]

Patchset 1 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/c11607a50691c6da823467bb389d14f659433c77
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#433852}