Revert 270308 "sync: Improve handling of bad UniquePositions"

trunk/src/sync/syncable/directory_unittest.cc

Index: trunk/src/sync/syncable/directory_unittest.cc
===================================================================
--- trunk/src/sync/syncable/directory_unittest.cc	(revision 270323)
+++ trunk/src/sync/syncable/directory_unittest.cc	(working copy)
@@ -81,11 +81,6 @@
 
   DirOpenResult open_result =
       dir_->Open(kDirectoryName, &delegate_, NullTransactionObserver());
-
-  if (open_result != OPENED) {
-    dir_.reset();
-  }
-
   return open_result;
 }
 
@@ -1226,38 +1221,6 @@
   }
 }
 
-// Any item with BOOKMARKS in their local specifics should have a valid local
-// unique position.  If there is an item in the loaded DB that does not match
-// this criteria, we consider the whole DB to be corrupt.
-TEST_F(SyncableDirectoryTest, BadPositionCountsAsCorruption) {
-  TestIdFactory id_factory;
-
-  {
-    WriteTransaction trans(FROM_HERE, UNITTEST, dir().get());
-
-    MutableEntry parent(&trans, CREATE, BOOKMARKS, id_factory.root(), "parent");
-    parent.PutIsDir(true);
-    parent.PutIsUnsynced(true);
-
-    // The code is littered with DCHECKs that try to stop us from doing what
-    // we're about to do.  Our work-around is to create a bookmark based on
-    // a server update, then update its local specifics without updating its
-    // local unique position.
-
-    MutableEntry child(
-        &trans, CREATE_NEW_UPDATE_ITEM, id_factory.MakeServer("child"));
-    sync_pb::EntitySpecifics specifics;
-    AddDefaultFieldValue(BOOKMARKS, &specifics);
-    child.PutIsUnappliedUpdate(true);
-    child.PutSpecifics(specifics);
-
-    EXPECT_TRUE(child.ShouldMaintainPosition());
-    EXPECT_TRUE(!child.GetUniquePosition().IsValid());
-  }
-
-  EXPECT_EQ(FAILED_DATABASE_CORRUPT, SimulateSaveAndReloadDir());
-}
-
 TEST_F(SyncableDirectoryTest, General) {
   int64 written_metahandle;
   const Id id = TestIdFactory::FromNumber(99);