* currently skipping MediumTests on Android, and we skip them by not making them present at
   * runtime at all. I could just make _this_ test a MediumTest, but then it wouldn't run on
   * Android.... The right long-term fix is probably to get MediumTests running under Android by
   * default and then suppress them strategically as needed.
   */

   * currently skipping MediumTests on Android, and we skip them by not making them present at
   * runtime at all. I could just make _this_ test a MediumTest, but then it wouldn't run on
   * Android.... The right long-term fix is probably to get MediumTests running under Android by
   * default and then suppress them strategically as needed.
   */

    </dependency>
  </dependencies>
  <build>
    <resources>
      <resource>
        <directory>..</directory>
        <includes>
          <include>LICENSE</include> <!-- copied from the parent pom because I couldn't figure out a way to make combine.children="append" work -->
          <include>proguard/*</include>
        </includes>
        <targetPath>META-INF</targetPath>
      </resource>
    </resources>
    <plugins>

            if (hashTable[(knownRunStart + maxRunBeforeFallback - 1) & mask] == null) {
              // There are only maxRunBeforeFallback - 1 elements between here and there,
              // so even if they were all nonnull, we wouldn't detect a hash flood.  Therefore,
              // we can skip them all.
              knownRunStart += maxRunBeforeFallback;
            } else {

  boolean iterateValuesAndGet(int reps) {
    Map<Element, Element> map = mapToTest;

    boolean dummy = false;
    for (int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
      for (Element key : map.values()) {
        // This normally wouldn't make sense, but because our keys are our values it kind of does
        Element value = map.get(key);
        dummy ^= key != value;
      }
    }
    return dummy;
  }

import java.util.List;
import junit.framework.TestSuite;

/**
 * Unit test for {@link Resources}.
 *
 * @author Chris Nokleberg
 */

public class ResourcesTest extends IoTestCase {

  @AndroidIncompatible // wouldn't run anyway, but strip the source entirely because of b/230620681
  public static TestSuite suite() {
    TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
    suite.addTest(
        ByteSourceTester.tests(

      super(message);
    }

    @Override
    public synchronized Throwable fillInStackTrace() {
      setStackTrace(new StackTraceElement[0]);
      return this; // no stack trace, wouldn't be useful anyway
    }
  }

  @Override
  @CheckForNull
  protected String pendingToString() {
    ListenableFuture<? extends V> localInputFuture = delegateRef;
    ScheduledFuture<?> localTimer = timer;

@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault
/*
 * A nullable bound would let users create a TypeParameter instance for a parameter with a nullable
 * bound. However, it would also let them create `new TypeParameter<@Nullable T>() {}`, which
 * wouldn't behave as users might expect. Additionally, it's not clear how the TypeToken API could
 * support even a "normal" `TypeParameter<T>` when `<T>` has a nullable bound. (See the discussion

        for (File f : files) {
          if (!delete(f)) {
            return false;
          }
        }
      }
    }

    if (!file.delete()) {
      logger.log(Level.WARNING, "couldn't delete file: {0}", new Object[] {file});
      return false;
    }

    return true;
  }

    </dependency>
  </dependencies>
  <build>
    <resources>
      <resource>
        <directory>..</directory>
        <includes>
          <include>LICENSE</include> <!-- copied from the parent pom because I couldn't figure out a way to make combine.children="append" work -->
          <include>proguard/*</include>
        </includes>
        <targetPath>META-INF</targetPath>
      </resource>
    </resources>
    <plugins>