long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();

        long elapsed = endTime - startTime;
        assertTrue("Expected at least 15ms sleep, got " + elapsed + "ms", elapsed >= 15);
        // Generous tolerance for CI environments like GitHub Actions
        assertTrue("Expected less than 200ms sleep, got " + elapsed + "ms", elapsed < 200);
    }

    public void test_waitForNext_withZeroInterval() {

 * [CWAC-NetSecurity](https://github.com/commonsguy/cwac-netsecurity): Simplifying Secure Internet Access.
 * [Failsafe](https://failsafe.dev/okhttp/): Fault tolerance and resilience patterns.
 * [Flipper](https://fbflipper.com/): A desktop debugging platform for mobile developers.
 * [Fresco](https://github.com/facebook/fresco): An Android library for managing images and the memory they use.

import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test

/**
 * Integration test to confirm that [TaskRunner] works with a real backend. Business logic is all
 * exercised by [TaskRunnerTest].
 *
 * This test is doing real sleeping with tolerances of 250 ms. Hopefully that's enough for even the
 * busiest of CI servers.
 */
@Tag("Slowish")
class TaskRunnerRealBackendTest {
  private val log = LinkedBlockingDeque<String>()

     *
     * TODO(cpovirk): decide what the best long-term action here is: force users
     * to suppress (as we do now), stop testing entrySet().add() at all, make
     * entrySet().add() tests tolerant of either behavior, introduce a map
     * feature for entrySet() that supports add(), or something else
     */
    return asList(
        getAddUnsupportedNotPresentMethod(),

   * identical inputs: This sounds like it ought to be a problem here, since the goals of this class
   * include testing that {@code equals()} is reflexive and is tolerant of {@code null}. However,
   * there's no problem. The reason: {@link EqualsTester} tests {@code null} and identical inputs
   * directly against {@code equals()} rather than through the {@code Equivalence}.
   */

  }

  /*
   * Our implementation works fine with a null `dir`. However, there's nothing in the documentation
   * of the supertype that suggests that implementations are expected to tolerate null. That said, I
   * see calls in Google code that pass a null `dir` to a FilenameFilter.... So let's declare the
   * parameter as non-nullable (since passing null to a FilenameFilter is unsafe in general), but if

     *
     * TODO(cpovirk): decide what the best long-term action here is: force users
     * to suppress (as we do now), stop testing entrySet().add() at all, make
     * entrySet().add() tests tolerant of either behavior, introduce a map
     * feature for entrySet() that supports add(), or something else
     */
    return asList(
        getAddUnsupportedNotPresentMethod(),

   * identical inputs: This sounds like it ought to be a problem here, since the goals of this class
   * include testing that {@code equals()} is reflexive and is tolerant of {@code null}. However,
   * there's no problem. The reason: {@link EqualsTester} tests {@code null} and identical inputs
   * directly against {@code equals()} rather than through the {@code Equivalence}.
   */

gender identity or expression, language, national origin, political beliefs, profession, race,
religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and technical ability. We will not tolerate
discrimination based on any of the protected characteristics above, including participants with
disabilities.

Reporting Issues
----------------