## Overriding dependencies during testing { #overriding-dependencies-during-testing }

There are some scenarios where you might want to override a dependency during testing.

You don't want the original dependency to run (nor any of the sub-dependencies it might have).

	"time"
)

// Supported amz date formats.
var amzDateFormats = []string{
	// Do not change this order, x-amz-date format is usually in
	// iso8601Format rest are meant for relaxed handling of other
	// odd SDKs that might be out there.
	"20060102T150405Z",
	time.RFC1123,
	time.RFC1123Z,
	// Add new AMZ date formats here.
}

// ErrMalformedDate always returned for dates that cannot be parsed.

4. The daemon runs the request, sending back data such as logging output or tooling API events and intermediate models while doing so.
5. The daemon sends the result back. For some requests, this might be a simple success/failure result, and for others this might also include a more complex object, such as a tooling API model.

points to the public IP address where each cluster might be accessible, this is unique for each cluster.

NOTE: `mybucket` only exists on one cluster either `cluster1` or `cluster2` this is random and
is decided by how `domain.com` gets resolved, if there is a round-robin DNS on `domain.com` then
it is randomized which cluster might provision the bucket.

### 3. Test your setup

    }
    assertNull(
        "The array element immediately following the end of the collection should be nulled",
        array[getNumElements()]);
    // array[getNumElements() + 1] might or might not have been nulled
  }

  @CollectionFeature.Require(KNOWN_ORDER)
  public void testToArray_oversizedArray_ordered() {
    E[] array = getSubjectGenerator().createArray(getNumElements() + 2);

   * be declared as a {@code List}.
   *
   * <p>Note also that serialization is not in general required to return an object that is
   * {@linkplain Object#equals equal} to the original, nor is it required to return even an object
   * of the same class. For example, if sublists of {@code MyList} instances were serializable,

 */
/*
 * 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

   * code would be responsible for populating a "real" {@code T} (which might still be the value
   * {@code null}!) before returning it to callers. Depending on how the code is structured, a
   * nullness analysis might not understand that the field has been populated. To avoid that problem
   * without having to add {@code @SuppressWarnings}, the code can call this method.
   *

   * code would be responsible for populating a "real" {@code T} (which might still be the value
   * {@code null}!) before returning it to callers. Depending on how the code is structured, a
   * nullness analysis might not understand that the field has been populated. To avoid that problem
   * without having to add {@code @SuppressWarnings}, the code can call this method.
   *

 */
/*
 * 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