// If there's a "Expect: 100-continue" header on the request, wait for a "HTTP/1.1 100
        // Continue" response before transmitting the request body. If we don't get that, return
        // what we did get (such as a 4xx response) without ever transmitting the request body.
        if ("100-continue".equals(request.header("Expect"), ignoreCase = true)) {
          exchange.flushRequest()

            Thread.interrupted();
            if (interruptingThread.isAlive()) {
              // This will be hidden by test-output redirection:
              logger.severe("InterruptenatorTask did not exit; future tests may be affected");
              /*
               * This won't do any good under JUnit 3, but I'll leave it around in
               * case we ever switch to JUnit 4:
               */

   * of a call to {@code remove()}. Thus, the expectation doesn't hold that {@code map.remove(x)}
   * returns the same value which {@code map.get(x)} did immediately beforehand.
   */
  @Override
  public void testRemove() {
    Map<String, Collection<Integer>> map;
    try {
      map = makePopulatedMap();
    } catch (UnsupportedOperationException e) {

      }
      String error = errorMessage.get();
      assertNull(error, error);
    }
    executor.shutdown();
  }

  /**
   * He did the bash, he did the future bash The future bash, it was a concurrency smash He did the
   * bash, it caught on in a flash He did the bash, he did the future bash
   */

  public void testFutureBash() {
    if (isWindows()) {

    }

    /**
     * Adds the specified element to this set if it is not already present.
     *
     * @param o
     *            element to be added to this set.
     * @return true if the set did not already contain the specified
     *         element.
     */
    @Override
    public boolean add(final E o) {
        return map.put(o, PRESENT) == null;
    }

    /**

            Thread.interrupted();
            if (interruptingThread.isAlive()) {
              // This will be hidden by test-output redirection:
              logger.severe("InterruptenatorTask did not exit; future tests may be affected");
              /*
               * This won't do any good under JUnit 3, but I'll leave it around in
               * case we ever switch to JUnit 4:
               */

    @Override
    ListenableFuture<V> runInterruptibly() throws Exception {
      return checkNotNull(
          callable.call(),
          "AsyncCallable.call returned null instead of a Future. "
              + "Did you mean to return immediateFuture(null)? %s",
          callable);
    }

    @Override
    void afterRanInterruptiblySuccess(ListenableFuture<V> result) {
      setFuture(result);
    }

    @Override

   *
   * @param reference any array of the desired type
   * @param length the length of the new array
   */
  /*
   * The new array contains nulls, even if the old array did not. If we wanted to be accurate, we
   * would declare a return type of `@Nullable T[]`. However, we've decided not to think too hard
   * about arrays for now, as they're a mess. (We previously discussed this in the review of

      }
      String error = errorMessage.get();
      assertNull(error, error);
    }
    executor.shutdown();
  }

  /**
   * He did the bash, he did the future bash The future bash, it was a concurrency smash He did the
   * bash, it caught on in a flash He did the bash, he did the future bash
   */

  public void testFutureBash() {
    if (isWindows()) {

   *
   * @param reference any array of the desired type
   * @param length the length of the new array
   */
  /*
   * The new array contains nulls, even if the old array did not. If we wanted to be accurate, we
   * would declare a return type of `@Nullable T[]`. However, we've decided not to think too hard
   * about arrays for now, as they're a mess. (We previously discussed this in the review of