}

    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);

  }

  private static class StringWrapper {
    private final String value;

    StringWrapper(String value) {
      this.value = value;
    }
  }

  @GwtIncompatible // J2CL generics problem
  public void testAndThen() {
    Converter<StringWrapper, String> first =
        new Converter<StringWrapper, String>() {
          @Override
          protected String doForward(StringWrapper object) {

   * 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

         * 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

         * 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

   * problematic AtomicReferenceFieldUpdaterAtomicHelper code path. However, the same problem *does*
   * matter with AggregateFutureState, which does not have an Unsafe-based helper.
   *
   * This same problem is one of the reasons for us to likewise use package-private for the fields
   * in Waiter.
   */

  /**

   * problematic AtomicReferenceFieldUpdaterAtomicHelper code path. However, the same problem *does*
   * matter with AggregateFutureState, which does not have an Unsafe-based helper.
   *
   * This same problem is one of the reasons for us to likewise use package-private for the fields
   * in Waiter.
   */

  /**