* state: BLOCKED, WAITING, or TIMED_WAITING.
   */
  void waitForThreadToEnterWaitState(Thread thread, long timeoutMillis) {
    long startTime = System.nanoTime();
    for (; ; ) {
      Thread.State s = thread.getState();
      if (s == Thread.State.BLOCKED || s == Thread.State.WAITING || s == Thread.State.TIMED_WAITING)
        return;

   * state: BLOCKED, WAITING, or TIMED_WAITING.
   */
  void waitForThreadToEnterWaitState(Thread thread, long timeoutMillis) {
    long startTime = System.nanoTime();
    for (; ; ) {
      Thread.State s = thread.getState();
      if (s == Thread.State.BLOCKED || s == Thread.State.WAITING || s == Thread.State.TIMED_WAITING)
        return;

### Always `raise` in Dependencies with `yield` and `except`

If you catch an exception in a dependency with `yield`, unless you are raising another `HTTPException` or similar, you should re-raise the original exception.

    SATISFIED_AND_OCCUPIED_BEFORE_ENTERING,
    SATISFIED_UNOCCUPIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_ENTERING,

    SATISFIED_BEFORE_WAITING,
    SATISFIED_WHILE_WAITING,
    SATISFIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_WAITING,
    UNSATISFIED_BEFORE_AND_WHILE_WAITING,
    UNSATISFIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_WAITING;

    @Override
    public String toString() {
      return CaseFormat.UPPER_UNDERSCORE.to(CaseFormat.UPPER_CAMEL, name());
    }

    SATISFIED_AND_OCCUPIED_BEFORE_ENTERING,
    SATISFIED_UNOCCUPIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_ENTERING,

    SATISFIED_BEFORE_WAITING,
    SATISFIED_WHILE_WAITING,
    SATISFIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_WAITING,
    UNSATISFIED_BEFORE_AND_WHILE_WAITING,
    UNSATISFIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_WAITING;

    @Override
    public String toString() {
      return CaseFormat.UPPER_UNDERSCORE.to(CaseFormat.UPPER_CAMEL, name());
    }

 * ordinary tests.
 *
 * <p>Failure of the expected event to occur within an implementation-defined "reasonable" time
 * period or an interrupt while waiting for the expected event will result in a {@link
 * RuntimeException}.
 *
 * <p>Here's an example that tests a {@code finalize} method:
 *
 * <pre>{@code
 * final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);

In this scenario of "fast food burgers with your crush", as there is a lot of waiting 🕙, it makes a lot more sense to have a concurrent system ⏸🔀⏯.

This is the case for most of the web applications.

Many, many users, but your server is waiting 🕙 for their not-so-good connection to send their requests.

And then waiting 🕙 again for the responses to come back.

[19511] [INFO] Started server process [19511]
[19511] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19511] [INFO] Application startup complete.
[19513] [INFO] Started server process [19513]
[19513] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19513] [INFO] Application startup complete.
[19514] [INFO] Started server process [19514]
[19514] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19514] [INFO] Application startup complete.

 * ordinary tests.
 *
 * <p>Failure of the expected event to occur within an implementation-defined "reasonable" time
 * period or an interrupt while waiting for the expected event will result in a {@link
 * RuntimeException}.
 *
 * <p>Here's an example that tests a {@code finalize} method:
 *
 * <pre>{@code
 * final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);

[19511] [INFO] Started server process [19511]
[19511] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19511] [INFO] Application startup complete.
[19513] [INFO] Started server process [19513]
[19513] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19513] [INFO] Application startup complete.
[19514] [INFO] Started server process [19514]
[19514] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19514] [INFO] Application startup complete.