Mesmo que a sua aplicação **FastAPI** utilize funções normais com `def` no lugar de `async def`, ela ainda é uma aplicação `async` por baixo dos panos.

Even if your **FastAPI** application uses normal `def` functions instead of `async def`, it is still an `async` application underneath.

The `TestClient` does some magic inside to call the asynchronous FastAPI application in your normal `def` test functions, using standard pytest. But that magic doesn't work anymore when we're using it inside asynchronous functions. By running our tests asynchronously, we can no longer use the `TestClient` inside our test functions.

 * caller's responsibility.
 *
 * @author Paul Marks
 * @since 10.0
 */
@Immutable
@GwtCompatible
public final class HostAndPort implements Serializable {
  /** Magic value indicating the absence of a port number. */
  private static final int NO_PORT = -1;

  /** Hostname, IPv4/IPv6 literal, or unvalidated nonsense. */
  private final String host;

/// tip | Consejo

Lo importante y "mágico" aquí es que `get_current_user` tendrá una lista diferente de `scopes` para verificar para cada *path operation*.

        };
    assertThat(future.get(0, SECONDS)).isEqualTo("foo");
  }

  public void testEvilFuture_setFuture() throws Exception {
    RuntimeException exception = new RuntimeException("you didn't say the magic word!");
    AbstractFuture<String> evilFuture =
        new AbstractFuture<String>() {
          @Override
          public void addListener(Runnable r, Executor e) {
            throw exception;
          }

        };
    assertThat(future.get(0, SECONDS)).isEqualTo("foo");
  }

  public void testEvilFuture_setFuture() throws Exception {
    RuntimeException exception = new RuntimeException("you didn't say the magic word!");
    AbstractFuture<String> evilFuture =
        new AbstractFuture<String>() {
          @Override
          public void addListener(Runnable r, Executor e) {
            throw exception;
          }

/// tip

The important and "magic" thing here is that `get_current_user` will have a different list of `scopes` to check for each *path operation*.

import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;
import junit.framework.TestCase;
import org.jspecify.annotations.NullUnmarked;

/**
 * Unittests for {@link CycleDetectingLockFactory}.
 *
 * @author Darick Tong
 */
@NullUnmarked
@GwtIncompatible
@J2ktIncompatible
public class CycleDetectingLockFactoryTest extends TestCase {

  private ReentrantLock lockA;
  private ReentrantLock lockB;

import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;
import junit.framework.TestCase;
import org.jspecify.annotations.NullUnmarked;

/**
 * Unittests for {@link CycleDetectingLockFactory}.
 *
 * @author Darick Tong
 */
@NullUnmarked
@GwtIncompatible
@J2ktIncompatible
public class CycleDetectingLockFactoryTest extends TestCase {

  private ReentrantLock lockA;
  private ReentrantLock lockB;

					<li class="nav-item">
						<a href="${fe:url('/admin/wizard/')}" class="nav-link <c:if test="${param.menuType=='wizard'}">active</c:if>" <c:if test="${param.menuType=='wizard'}">aria-current="page"</c:if>>
							<i class='fa fa-magic nav-icon' aria-hidden="true"></i>
							<p><la:message key="labels.menu_wizard" /></p>
						</a>
					</li>
					</c:if>
					<c:if test="${fe:permission('admin-general-view')}">
					<li class="nav-item">