Remove String16::remove.

This function, ironically, is being removed.

Even more amusing, it was never "remove" anyway --- it literally did
the opposite, and removed everything *except* the range you passed to
it, and should probably have been called "keep"!

I'm looking at reimplementing much of libutils, but first I'm improving
test coverage, and literally every test I wrote for this failed. And
then when I fixed the "obvious bugs" in the implementation, I found
there actually were a couple of existing unit tests --- that mostly
served to demonstrate just how counter-intuitive this function was.

Bug: http://b/156999009
Test: treehugger
Change-Id: I41fd85f7c0988070f4039f607d2e57523d862ed9

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 15 deletions

diff --git a/libutils/String16_test.cpp b/libutils/String16_test.cpp
index c2e9b02cd..54662ac41 100644
--- a/libutils/String16_test.cpp
+++ b/libutils/String16_test.cpp
@@ -90,13 +90,6 @@ TEST(String16Test, Insert) {
     EXPECT_STR16EQ(u"VerifyInsert me", tmp);
 }
 
-TEST(String16Test, Remove) {
-    String16 tmp("Verify me");
-    tmp.remove(2, 6);
-    EXPECT_EQ(2U, tmp.size());
-    EXPECT_STR16EQ(u" m", tmp);
-}
-
 TEST(String16Test, ReplaceAll) {
     String16 tmp("Verify verify Verify");
     tmp.replaceAll(u'r', u'!');
@@ -161,14 +154,6 @@ TEST(String16Test, StaticStringInsert) {
     EXPECT_FALSE(tmp.isStaticString());
 }
 
-TEST(String16Test, StaticStringRemove) {
-    StaticString16 tmp(u"Verify me");
-    tmp.remove(2, 6);
-    EXPECT_EQ(2U, tmp.size());
-    EXPECT_STR16EQ(u" m", tmp);
-    EXPECT_FALSE(tmp.isStaticString());
-}
-
 TEST(String16Test, StaticStringReplaceAll) {
     StaticString16 tmp(u"Verify verify Verify");
     tmp.replaceAll(u'r', u'!');