Remove redundant param from Sync FakeServer infra

Remove redundant param from Sync FakeServer infra

The BookmarkEntity class always represents a Bookmark, so there's no
reason to have a ModelType param as part of its constructor.

BUG=NONE

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=276814

[pval...(no longer on Chromium), 2014-06-05 22:57:00]

Here is a very difficult CL to review.

[maniscalco, 2014-06-06 00:21:18]

https://codereview.chromium.org/319823002/diff/20001/sync/test/fake_server/bo...
File sync/test/fake_server/bookmark_entity.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/319823002/diff/20001/sync/test/fake_server/bo...
sync/test/fake_server/bookmark_entity.cc:35: if (client_entity.version() != 0 ||
!IsBookmark(client_entity)) {
I may not fully understand the context here.  Seems like calling
BookmarkEntity::CreateNew with a client_entity that is not a bookmark would be a
bug, no?  I guess I would have expected a DCHECK(IsBookmark(client_entity))
instead.

[pval...(no longer on Chromium), 2014-06-09 18:50:26]

https://codereview.chromium.org/319823002/diff/20001/sync/test/fake_server/bo...
File sync/test/fake_server/bookmark_entity.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/319823002/diff/20001/sync/test/fake_server/bo...
sync/test/fake_server/bookmark_entity.cc:35: if (client_entity.version() != 0 ||
!IsBookmark(client_entity)) {
On 2014/06/06 00:21:18, maniscalco wrote:
> I may not fully understand the context here.  Seems like calling
> BookmarkEntity::CreateNew with a client_entity that is not a bookmark would be
a
> bug, no?  I guess I would have expected a DCHECK(IsBookmark(client_entity))
> instead.

You're right; I think this is better. Note that I've used CHECK (not DCHECK)
here since the tests can run in release mode and we still want this error
triggered.

[maniscalco, 2014-06-09 18:52:55]

lgtm

[pval...(no longer on Chromium), 2014-06-09 19:04:48]

The CQ bit was checked by pvalenzuela@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-09 19:06:07]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/pvalenzuela@chromium.org/319823002/40001

[pval...(no longer on Chromium), 2014-06-09 22:07:43]

The CQ bit was unchecked by pvalenzuela@chromium.org

[pval...(no longer on Chromium), 2014-06-09 23:41:28]

I've switched back to DCHECKs based on the review thread on
https://codereview.chromium.org/327593003/

PTAL?

[pval...(no longer on Chromium), 2014-06-10 00:19:42]

On 2014/06/09 23:41:28, pvalenzuela wrote:
> I've switched back to DCHECKs based on the review thread on
> https://codereview.chromium.org/327593003/
> 
> PTAL?

After an offline discussion, we've decided to go with CHECK since it is a
stronger assertion (always fires). Also, since FakeServer will never run in the
real user-facing binary, we will err on the side of a crash to detect problems.

[maniscalco, 2014-06-10 15:38:27]

lgtm

[pval...(no longer on Chromium), 2014-06-11 16:56:04]

The CQ bit was checked by pvalenzuela@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 16:57:31]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/pvalenzuela@chromium.org/319823002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 21:33:16]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_x64_rel/...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 21:38:46]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 21:38:47]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_x64_rel/...)

[pval...(no longer on Chromium), 2014-06-11 22:58:04]

The CQ bit was checked by pvalenzuela@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 23:00:04]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/pvalenzuela@chromium.org/319823002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 23:04:20]

FYI, CQ is re-trying this CL (attempt #1).
The failing builders are:
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)
  win_chromium_x64_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_x64_rel/...)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 23:06:09]

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

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-11 23:06:10]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_rel on tryserver.chromium
(http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/builders/win_chromium_rel/buil...)

[pval...(no longer on Chromium), 2014-06-12 17:29:06]

The CQ bit was checked by pvalenzuela@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 17:30:51]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/pvalenzuela@chromium.org/319823002/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-06-12 21:52:42]

Change committed as 276814