Remove always-false check of retryCurrentRoute() and unreachable code.

[rengwuxian]

This retryCurrentRoute() check will always return false, because transmitter.connection is null here.

Reason:
Just a few lines above, result is set to transmitter.connection, with the condition transmitter.connection != null. And as result == null is the entry condition of this lower block, transmitter.connection should definitely be null, which makes retryCurrentRoute() always return false.

// findConnection()
// wrapped in a synchronized block

if (transmitter.connection != null) {
    // We had an already-allocated connection and it's good.
    result = transmitter.connection
    releasedConnection = null
}

if (result == null) {
  // Attempt to get a connection from the pool.
  if (connectionPool.transmitterAcquirePooledConnection(address, transmitter, null, false)) {
    foundPooledConnection = true
    result = transmitter.connection
  } else if (nextRouteToTry != null) {
    selectedRoute = nextRouteToTry
    nextRouteToTry = null
  } else if (retryCurrentRoute()) {
    selectedRoute = transmitter.connection!!.route()
  }
}


...


private fun retryCurrentRoute(): Boolean {
  return transmitter.connection != null &&
      transmitter.connection!!.routeFailureCount == 0 &&
      transmitter.connection!!.route().address.url.canReuseConnectionFor(address.url)
}

[rengwuxian]

@swankjesse Can you take a look at this? I know you're preparing for the next release of OkHttp, but I'm not just "jump into the code and find a stain then hurry to clean it without thinking". I've read the total workflow of OkHttp 4.3.1, and I'm 99% sure these 2 lines are safe to delete.

1. nextRouteToTry looks like (I'm not the author of it, so I'd rather use "looks like" than "is") a marker for a later round of connection creation, just as an [IP address + port + Proxy] combination, so that you don't have to call RouteSelection.next();
2. But I don't see how the next 2 lines (which is deleted by me) works. they look like another quick pick, but the line inside the curly braces seems not able to be reached.

Or have I missed something? As I said, I'm 99% sure, not 100% 😂 .

[rengwuxian]

Resolved conflicts with the latest code.

[swankjesse]

Code coverage agrees!

[swankjesse]

Love it. Agreed with your reasoning. Nice find!

[rengwuxian]

😄