Remove panics from reportMissingVariationDependency

The code that has been removed triggers in many cases when it should
not, e.g. an unknown module on the bootclasspath. The code was
originally added to try and ensure that if the attempt to add useful
error messages failed it would help debug the issue. However, it ended
up just creating more failures.

If this does become an issue then this will be revisited.

Bug: 177892522
Test: Add an unknown module to PRODUCT_BOOT_JARS
      m SOONG_ALLOW_MISSING_DEPENDENCIES=true
Change-Id: I08dbd4b29d301f3f1f78a0fb396687062b47deb8

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/java/bootclasspath.go b/java/bootclasspath.go
index 6ca0f7533..c16193d73 100644
--- a/java/bootclasspath.go
+++ b/java/bootclasspath.go
@@ -15,9 +15,8 @@
 package java
 
 import (
-	"fmt"
-
 	"android/soong/android"
+
 	"github.com/google/blueprint"
 	"github.com/google/blueprint/proptools"
 )
@@ -116,15 +115,7 @@ func addDependencyOntoApexModulePair(ctx android.BottomUpMutatorContext, apex st
 // reportMissingVariationDependency intentionally adds a dependency on a missing variation in order
 // to generate an appropriate error message with information about the available variations.
 func reportMissingVariationDependency(ctx android.BottomUpMutatorContext, variations []blueprint.Variation, name string) {
-	modules := ctx.AddFarVariationDependencies(variations, nil, name)
-	if len(modules) != 1 {
-		panic(fmt.Errorf("Internal Error: expected one module, found %d", len(modules)))
-		return
-	}
-	if modules[0] != nil {
-		panic(fmt.Errorf("Internal Error: expected module to be missing but was found: %q", modules[0]))
-		return
-	}
+	ctx.AddFarVariationDependencies(variations, nil, name)
 }
 
 // ApexVariantReference specifies a particular apex variant of a module.