import com.google.common.collect.testing.SampleElements.Unhashables;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.List;

/**
 * Creates collections containing unhashable sample elements, to be tested.
 *
 * @author Regina O'Dell
 */
@GwtCompatible
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault
public abstract class TestUnhashableCollectionGenerator<T extends Collection<UnhashableObject>>
    implements TestCollectionGenerator<UnhashableObject> {

              builderWithKeys.treeSetValues(),
              builderWithKeys.enumSetValues(RoundingMode.class))) {
        /*
         * Temporarily inlining SerializableTester here for obscure internal reasons.
         */
        reserializeAndAssert(builder.build());
      }
    }
  }

  @J2ktIncompatible
  @GwtIncompatible // serialization

   */
  public void testRegularFutureInterrupted() throws ExecutionException {

    /*
     * Here's the order of events that we want.
     *
     * 1. The client thread begins to block on a get() call to a future.
     * 2. The client thread is interrupted sometime before the result would be
     *   available.
     * 3. We expect the client's get() to throw an InterruptedException.

          <detectJavaApiLink>false</detectJavaApiLink>
          <offlineLinks>

 *
 * @author Mark Davis
 * @author Kevin Bourrillion
 * @since 2.0
 */
@GwtCompatible
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault
public abstract class ComparisonChain {
  private ComparisonChain() {}

  /** Begins a new chained comparison statement. See example in the class documentation. */
  public static ComparisonChain start() {
    return ACTIVE;
  }

  private static final ComparisonChain ACTIVE =

  // earlier versions of Monitor even did something like this. I ended
  // up strongly favoring the current interface.
  //
  // I probably can't remember all the reasons (it's possible you
  // could find them in the code review archives), but here are a few:
  //
  // 1. What about leaving/unlocking? Are you going to do
  //    guard.enter() paired with monitor.leave()? That might get

   * nullness checker can already "prove" are non-null. That means that the first parameter to
   * checkNotNull *should* be annotated to require it to be non-null.
   *
   * However, for a variety of reasons, Google developers have written a ton of code over the past
   * decade that assumes that they can use checkNotNull for non-precondition checks. I had hoped to

 * <p>Use this class instead of direct calls to {@link System#nanoTime} for two reasons:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>The raw {@code long} values returned by {@code nanoTime} are meaningless and unsafe to use
 *       in any other way than how {@code Stopwatch} uses them.
 *   <li>An alternative source of nanosecond ticks can be substituted, for example for testing or
 *       performance reasons, without affecting most of your code.
 * </ul>
 *

    // than wrapping cbuf in a light-weight CharSequence.
    target.append(new String(cbuf, off, len));
  }

  /*
   * Override a few functions for performance reasons to avoid creating unnecessary strings.
   */

  @Override
  public void write(int c) throws IOException {
    checkNotClosed();
    target.append((char) c);
  }

  @Override

    checkNotNull(format);
    checkNotNull(str);
    return (format == this) ? str : convert(format, str);
  }

  /** Enum values can override for performance reasons. */
  String convert(CaseFormat format, String s) {
    // deal with camel conversion
    StringBuilder out = null;
    int i = 0;
    int j = -1;
    while ((j = wordBoundary.indexIn(s, ++j)) != -1) {