// OkHttp does not reject invalid Punycode.
      "xn--a",
      "xn--a.ß",
      "xn--a.xn--zca",
      "xn--a-yoc",
      // OkHttp doesn't reject U+FFFD encoded in Punycode.
      "xn--zn7c.com",
      // OkHttp doesn't reject a U+200D. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5892.html#appendix-A.2
      "xn--1ug.example",

    V onInvoke(Object p0);
  }
}

/** Subset of the elemental2 Promise API. */
@JsType(isNative = true, namespace = JsPackage.GLOBAL, name = "Promise")
class Promise<T extends @Nullable Object> implements IThenable<T> {

  @JsFunction
  interface PromiseExecutorCallbackFn<T extends @Nullable Object> {
    @JsFunction
    interface ResolveCallbackFn<T extends @Nullable Object> {

        assertTrue(filter.accept(mockDir, "document.txt"), "Should accept .txt files in the correct path");
        assertFalse(filter.accept(mockDir, "image.png"), "Should reject non-.txt files");
        assertFalse(filter.accept(mockDir, null), "Should reject null names");

        // Verify getPath was called three times (once for each accept call)
        verify(mockDir, times(3)).getPath();
        verifyNoMoreInteractions(mockDir);

package okhttp3

/**
 * Provides **policy** and **persistence** for HTTP cookies.
 *
 * As policy, implementations of this interface are responsible for selecting which cookies to
 * accept and which to reject. A reasonable policy is to reject all cookies, though that may
 * interfere with session-based authentication schemes that require cookies.
 *
 * As persistence, implementations of this interface must also provide storage of cookies. Simple

Your API now has the power to control its own <abbr title="This is a joke, just in case. It has nothing to do with cookie consents, but it's funny that even the API can now reject the poor cookies. Have a cookie. 🍪">cookie consent</abbr>. 🤪🍪

You can use Pydantic's model configuration to `forbid` any `extra` fields:

{* ../../docs_src/cookie_param_models/tutorial002_an_py39.py hl[10] *}

        SmbFileFilter filter = f -> f.length() > 0;

        // negative size -> reject
        when(smbFile.length()).thenReturn(-1L);
        assertFalse(filter.accept(smbFile), "Negative size should be rejected");
        verify(smbFile, times(1)).length();

        // zero size -> reject
        reset(smbFile);
        when(smbFile.length()).thenReturn(0L);

        assertTrue(key.isZero());
        assertArrayEquals(zeroBytes, key.getKey());
    }

    @Test
    @DisplayName("Should reject null key")
    void testNullKey() {
        assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> new Smb2LeaseKey(null));
    }

    @Test
    @DisplayName("Should reject wrong size key")
    void testWrongSizeKey() {
        assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> new Smb2LeaseKey(new byte[15]));

1. Once the security report is received one member of the security team tries to verify and reproduce
   the issue and determines the impact it has.
2. A member of the security team will respond and either confirm or reject the security report.
   If the report is rejected the response explains why.
3. Code is audited to find any potential similar problems.
4. Fixes are prepared for the latest release.

     * Maybe flag - indicates 'maybe' call semantics requested
     */
    int DCERPC_MAYBE = 0x40; /* `maybe' call semantics requested */
    /**
     * Object UUID flag - if true, a non-nil object UUID is present
     */
    int DCERPC_OBJECT_UUID = 0x80; /* if true, a non-nil object UUID */

    // Packet Types (ptype)
    /**
     * Request packet type
     */
    int RPC_PT_REQUEST = 0x00;
    /**
     * Ping packet type

    this.relationshipName = checkNotNull(relationshipName);
    this.hashName = checkNotNull(hashName);
    this.itemReporter = checkNotNull(itemReporter);
  }

  // TODO(cpovirk): should we reject null items, since the tests already check null automatically?
  @CanIgnoreReturnValue
  public RelationshipTester<T> addRelatedGroup(Iterable<? extends T> group) {
    groups.add(ImmutableList.copyOf(group));
    return this;