Remove disabling of prerender for managed users.

Remove disabling of prerender for managed users.

This is a revert of issue https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/14471033/

BUG=234231
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=202566

[Adrian Kuegel, 2013-05-28 08:43:22]

Chris, can you please review this CL?
We don't need to do a special case for prerendering anymore, therefore I want to
remove that code.

[cbentzel, 2013-05-28 11:41:37]

Code looks fine.

Why can't you just do a drover revert?

I also don't understand why this is no longer needed? What has been fixed in the
interim to make this no longer necessary?

[Adrian Kuegel, 2013-05-28 11:50:35]

Yes, I guess I could have used a drover revert. I am not really familiar with
that yet.
What has changed is: before we allowed the user to continue browsing to a
blocked website if he was able to authenticate as the custodian of the managed
user. There were some issues that when a page had been prerendered, showing the
page didn't work after resuming the load of the page. We have removed all
authentication stuff, so blocked pages will not be shown at all, and there is no
such issue anymore. One could argue that since we will not show a blocked page,
anyway, prerendering doesn't make sense, so we could also leave the code in.
What do you think?

[cbentzel, 2013-05-28 12:05:13]

On 2013/05/28 11:50:35, Adrian Kuegel wrote:
> Yes, I guess I could have used a drover revert. I am not really familiar with
> that yet.
> What has changed is: before we allowed the user to continue browsing to a
> blocked website if he was able to authenticate as the custodian of the managed
> user. There were some issues that when a page had been prerendered, showing
the
> page didn't work after resuming the load of the page. We have removed all
> authentication stuff, so blocked pages will not be shown at all, and there is
no
> such issue anymore. One could argue that since we will not show a blocked
page,
> anyway, prerendering doesn't make sense, so we could also leave the code in.
> What do you think?

Less code and complexity is better.

LGTM

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-05-28 12:18:21]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/akuegel@chromium.org/15891005/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-05-28 14:27:35]

Retried try job too often on linux_chromeos for step(s) browser_tests
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=linux_chro...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-05-28 14:31:28]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/akuegel@chromium.org/15891005/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-05-28 15:00:14]

Change committed as 202566