try {
            // Measure timing for differences at different positions
            long timeStart = measureEqualsTime(baseAuth, startAuth, TIMING_ITERATIONS);
            long timeMiddle = measureEqualsTime(baseAuth, middleAuth, TIMING_ITERATIONS);
            long timeEnd = measureEqualsTime(baseAuth, endAuth, TIMING_ITERATIONS);

            // Calculate relative timing differences

 * class was added for Java 8. The two classes are extremely similar, but incompatible (they cannot
 * share a common supertype). <i>All</i> known differences are listed either here or with the
 * relevant methods below.
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>This class is serializable; {@code java.util.Optional} is not.

    // We define the arithmetic means X_n = 1/n \sum_{i=1}^n x_i, and Y_n = 1/n \sum_{i=1}^n y_i.
    // We also define the sum of the products of the differences from the means
    //           C_n = \sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_i - n X_n Y_n
    // for all n >= 1. Then for all n > 1:
    //       C_{n-1} = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} x_i y_i - (n-1) X_{n-1} Y_{n-1}

   *
   * <p>This fit minimizes the root-mean-square error in {@code y} as a function of {@code x}. This
   * error is defined as the square root of the mean of the squares of the differences between the
   * actual {@code y} values of the data and the values predicted by the fit for the {@code x}
   * values (i.e. it is the square root of the mean of the squares of the vertical distances between

        PacDataInputStream pacStream = new PacDataInputStream(bais);

        Date date = pacStream.readFiletime();
        assertNotNull(date);
        // The date should be around 1970 (allowing for some conversion differences)
        assertTrue(date.getYear() + 1900 >= 1969 && date.getYear() + 1900 <= 1971);
    }

    @Test
    @DisplayName("Test invalid FILETIME handling")
    void testInvalidFiletime() throws Exception {

      ).build()
  }

  private fun buildServerSslSocketFactory(): SSLSocketFactory {
    // The test uses JDK default SSL Context instead of the Platform provided one
    // as Conscrypt seems to have some differences, we only want to test client side here.
    return try {
      val keyManager =
        newKeyManager(
          null,
          serverCert,
          serverIntermediateCa.certificate,
        )

            String expectedPath = "pom-with-profiles" + separator + "pom.xml";

            // The test will pass with File.separator but this shows the platform differences
            assertTrue(
                    actualLocation.contains("pom-with-profiles/pom.xml"),
                    "Location should contain path with proper separators for " + fsName + " (actual: " + actualLocation

{* ../../docs_src/sql_databases/tutorial001_an_py310.py ln[1:11] hl[7:11] *}

The `Hero` class is very similar to a Pydantic model (in fact, underneath, it actually *is a Pydantic model*).

There are a few differences:

* `table=True` tells SQLModel that this is a *table model*, it should represent a **table** in the SQL database, it's not just a *data model* (as would be any other regular Pydantic class).

### Access Control Configuration Variables

Either `MINIO_IDENTITY_OPENID_ROLE_POLICY` (recommended) or `MINIO_IDENTITY_OPENID_CLAIM_NAME` must be specified but not both. See the section Access Control Policies to understand the differences between the two.

**NOTE**: When configuring multiple OpenID based authentication providers on a MinIO cluster, any number of Role Policy based providers may be configured, and at most one JWT Claim based provider may be configured.

 * Verify.verify(bill.status() == Status.UNPAID,
 *     "Unexpected bill status: %s", bill.status());
 * }
 *
 * <h3>Comparison to alternatives</h3>
 *
 * <p><b>Note:</b> In some cases the differences explained below can be subtle. When it's unclear
 * which approach to use, <b>don't worry</b> too much about it; just pick something that seems
 * reasonable and it will be fine.
 *
 * <ul>