tester.forAllPublicStaticMethods(GoodSerializableFactory.class).testSerializable();
  }

  public static class GoodSerializableFactory {
    public static Object good(Runnable r) {
      return r;
    }

    public static Object good(AnInterface i) {
      return i;
    }
  }

  public void testSerializableOnReturnValues_bad() throws Exception {
    try {

 *
 * <p>{@code containsKey(k)}, {@code put(k, v)} and {@code remove(k)} are all (expected and
 * amortized) constant time operations. Expected in the hashtable sense (depends on the hash
 * function doing a good job of distributing the elements to the buckets to a distribution not far
 * from uniform), and amortized since some operations can trigger a hash table resize.
 *

       * non-final fields need to be reloaded inside the loop.
       *
       * And, no, defining (final or not) local variables out of the loop still isn't as good
       * because the null check on the theUnsafe object remains inside the loop and
       * BYTE_ARRAY_BASE_OFFSET doesn't get constant-folded.
       *

    }
  }

  public void verifyBarFail(Method method, TwoArg bar) {
    try {
      new NullPointerTester().testMethod(bar, method);
    } catch (AssertionError expected) {
      return; // good...we wanted a failure
    }
    String errorMessage =
        rootLocaleFormat("Should have flagged method %s for %s", method.getName(), bar);
    fail(errorMessage);
  }

ni,??o&jodsnd,tp&az,oh,??p&i&-on,fles,?o&hbew,tksedeerf,?tf&e&moh,vres,?ym,??r&e&gatop,ppepteews,su-xunil-a-si,?gmtrec,vdmac,?s&a&ila&nyd,snd,?nymsd,?b&alfmw,bevres,?d&ikcet.3s,ylimaf,?eirfotatophcuoc,j,koob-daer,ltbup,nd&-won,deerf,emoh,golb,kcud,mood,nyd:.&emoh,og,?,ps,rvd,tog,uolc,?s&a-skcik,ndd,?tnemhcattaomb,u,?t&ce&jorparodef.&duolc,gts.so.ppa,so.ppa,?riderbew,?e&ews-yrev-si,nretni&ehtfodne,fodne,??hgink-a-si,oi-allizom,s&ixetn&od,seod,?o&h-emag,l-si,?rifyam,??ue:.&a&-q,c,?cm,dc,e&b,d,e,i,...

ni,??o&jodsnd,tp&az,oh,??p&i&-on,fles,?o&hbew,tksedeerf,?tf&e&moh,vres,?ym,??r&e&gatop,ppepteews,su-xunil-a-si,?gmtrec,vdmac,?s&a&ila&nyd,snd,?nymsd,?b&alfmw,bevres,?d&ikcet.3s,ylimaf,?eirfotatophcuoc,j,koob-daer,ltbup,nd&-won,deerf,emoh,golb,kcud,mood,nyd:.&emoh,og,?,ps,rvd,tog,uolc,?s&a-skcik,ndd,?tnemhcattaomb,u,?t&ce&jorparodef.&duolc,gts.so.ppa,so.ppa,?riderbew,?e&ews-yrev-si,nretni&ehtfodne,fodne,??hgink-a-si,oi-allizom,s&ixetn&od,seod,?o&h-emag,l-si,?rifyam,??ue:.&a&-q,c,?cm,dc,e&b,d,e,i,...

            the module description of only the prod module. And the prod module doesn't inherit all
            the modules that the test module classes use, so we get errors.

            The good news is that, despite ignoring errors here, GWT does fail if any errors affect
            classes that are actually used in the module under test.

       * non-final fields need to be reloaded inside the loop.
       *
       * And, no, defining (final or not) local variables out of the loop still isn't as good
       * because the null check on the theUnsafe object remains inside the loop and
       * BYTE_ARRAY_BASE_OFFSET doesn't get constant-folded.
       *

    // when deep chains of futures exist resulting in a StackOverflowException. We could detect
    // arbitrary cycles using a thread local but this should be a good enough solution (it is also
    // what jdk collections do in these cases)
    try {
      if (o == this) {
        builder.append("this future");
      } else {
        builder.append(o);
      }

    // when deep chains of futures exist resulting in a StackOverflowException. We could detect
    // arbitrary cycles using a thread local but this should be a good enough solution (it is also
    // what jdk collections do in these cases)
    try {
      if (o == this) {
        builder.append("this future");
      } else {
        builder.append(o);
      }