* Jeśli nie rozumiesz pytania, poproś o więcej **szczegółów**.

### Odtwórz problem

W większości przypadków problem wynika z **autorskiego kodu** osoby pytającej.

Często pytający umieszczają tylko fragment kodu, niewystarczający do **odtworzenia problemu**.

### Das Problem verstehen

* Stellen Sie zunächst sicher, dass Sie **das Problem verstehen**, welches der Pull Request zu lösen versucht. Möglicherweise gibt es eine längere Diskussion dazu in einer GitHub-Diskussion oder einem GitHub-Issue.

Here's what to keep in mind and how to review a pull request:

### Understand the problem { #understand-the-problem }

* First, make sure you **understand the problem** that the pull request is trying to solve. It might have a longer discussion in a GitHub Discussion or issue.

* There's also a good chance that the pull request is not actually needed because the problem can be solved in a **different way**. Then you can suggest or ask about that.

    }

    public void test_multiLevelCause() {
        // Test with nested exceptions
        Throwable rootCause = new IllegalStateException("Root problem");
        Throwable intermediateCause = new RuntimeException("Intermediate problem", rootCause);
        GsaConfigException exception = new GsaConfigException("Top level GSA error", intermediateCause);

        assertNotNull(exception);

   * A word about using {@link Equivalence}, which automatically checks for {@code null} and
   * 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}.

   * nullness analysis might not understand that the field has been populated. To avoid that problem
   * without having to add {@code @SuppressWarnings}, the code can call this method.
   *
   * <p>Why <i>not</i> just add {@code SuppressWarnings}? The problem is that this method is
   * typically useful for {@code return} statements. That leaves the code with two options: Either

   * A word about using {@link Equivalence}, which automatically checks for {@code null} and
   * 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}.

   * nullness analysis might not understand that the field has been populated. To avoid that problem
   * without having to add {@code @SuppressWarnings}, the code can call this method.
   *
   * <p>Why <i>not</i> just add {@code SuppressWarnings}? The problem is that this method is
   * typically useful for {@code return} statements. That leaves the code with two options: Either

Prefer to use the `Annotated` version if possible.

///

{* ../../docs_src/path_params_numeric_validations/tutorial002.py hl[7] *}

////

But keep in mind that if you use `Annotated`, you won't have this problem, it won't matter as you're not using the function parameter default values for `Query()` or `Path()`.

{* ../../docs_src/path_params_numeric_validations/tutorial002_an_py39.py *}

         * We'd like to simply create our own TypeVariable with the newly resolved bounds. There's
         * just one problem: Under all the JDK versions that we support (though *not* under
         * Android), the built-in TypeVariable's equals() method doesn't recognize instances of our
         * TypeVariable implementation. This is a problem because users compare TypeVariables from