Remove BuildConfiguration.useDynamicConfigurations.

This is always true.

Part of the static config cleanup effort.

PiperOrigin-RevId: 165628823

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 14 deletions

diff --git a/src/test/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/skyframe/ConfigurationsForTargetsTest.java b/src/test/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/skyframe/ConfigurationsForTargetsTest.java
index 46c1cf99ca..0ea433908a 100644
--- a/src/test/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/skyframe/ConfigurationsForTargetsTest.java
+++ b/src/test/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/skyframe/ConfigurationsForTargetsTest.java
@@ -315,20 +315,12 @@ public class ConfigurationsForTargetsTest extends AnalysisTestCase {
               dep1.getConfiguration().getCpu(),
               dep2.getConfiguration().getCpu()))
           .containsExactly("armeabi-v7a", "k8");
-      // We don't care what order split deps are listed, but it must be deterministic. Static and
-      // dynamic configurations happen to apply different orders (static: same order as the split
-      // transition definition, dynamic: ConfiguredTargetFunction.DYNAMIC_SPLIT_DEP_ORDERING).
-      // That's okay because of the "we don't care what order" principle. The primary value of this
-      // test is to check against the new dynamic code, which will soon replace the static code
-      // anyway. And the static code is already well-tested through all other Blaze tests. And
-      // checking its order would be a lot uglier. So we only worry about the dynamic case here.
-      if (getTargetConfiguration().useDynamicConfigurations()) {
-        assertThat(
-            ConfiguredTargetFunction.DYNAMIC_SPLIT_DEP_ORDERING.compare(
-                Dependency.withConfiguration(dep1.getLabel(), dep1.getConfiguration()),
-                Dependency.withConfiguration(dep2.getLabel(), dep2.getConfiguration())))
-            .isLessThan(0);
-      }
+      // We don't care what order split deps are listed, but it must be deterministic.
+      assertThat(
+          ConfiguredTargetFunction.DYNAMIC_SPLIT_DEP_ORDERING.compare(
+              Dependency.withConfiguration(dep1.getLabel(), dep1.getConfiguration()),
+              Dependency.withConfiguration(dep2.getLabel(), dep2.getConfiguration())))
+          .isLessThan(0);
     }
   }
 }