## Review PRs

* If a PR doesn't explain what it does or why, if it seems like it could be useful, ask for more information. Otherwise, feel free to close it.

* If a PR seems to be spam, meaningless, only to change statistics (to appear as "contributor") or similar, you can simply mark it as `invalid`, and it will be automatically closed.

Most of these ideas would be more or less **independent**, and in most cases you should only need to study them if they apply directly to **your project**.

If something seems interesting and useful to your project, go ahead and check it, but otherwise, you might probably just skip them.

/// tip

     * Don't bother testing. All non-primitive parameters are used only to construct error messages.
     * We never want to pass null for them, so we haven't annotated them to say that null is
     * allowed. But at the same time, it seems wasteful to bother inserting the checkNotNull calls
     * that NullPointerTester wants.
     *
     * (This empty method disables the automatic null testing provided by PackageSanityTests.)
     */
  }

     * Don't bother testing. All non-primitive parameters are used only to construct error messages.
     * We never want to pass null for them, so we haven't annotated them to say that null is
     * allowed. But at the same time, it seems wasteful to bother inserting the checkNotNull calls
     * that NullPointerTester wants.
     *
     * (This empty method disables the automatic null testing provided by PackageSanityTests.)
     */
  }

# History, Design and Future { #history-design-and-future }

Some time ago, [a **FastAPI** user asked](https://github.com/fastapi/fastapi/issues/3#issuecomment-454956920):

> What’s the history of this project? It seems to have come from nowhere to awesome in a few weeks [...]

Here's a little bit of that history.

## Alternatives { #alternatives }

        "InjectOnConstructorOfAbstractClass", // We use abstract injection as a pattern
        "InlineMeSuggester", // Only suppression seems to actually "fix" this, so make it global
        "JavaUtilDate", // We are fine with using Date
        "JavaxInjectOnAbstractMethod", // We use abstract injection as a pattern

    // should be reading the byte at index 10.
    // We could use a custom InputStream instead to make the read start at index 10, but since this
    // is a racy situation anyway, this behavior seems reasonable.
    assertEquals(-1, in.read());
  }

  private static class AppendableByteSource extends ByteSource {
    private byte[] bytes;

    AppendableByteSource(byte[] initialBytes) {

    // should be reading the byte at index 10.
    // We could use a custom InputStream instead to make the read start at index 10, but since this
    // is a racy situation anyway, this behavior seems reasonable.
    assertEquals(-1, in.read());
  }

  private static class AppendableByteSource extends ByteSource {
    private byte[] bytes;

    AppendableByteSource(byte[] initialBytes) {

    list.set(0, (byte) 4);
    assertThat(newArray).isEqualTo(new byte[] {(byte) 0, (byte) 1, (byte) 2});
    newArray[1] = (byte) 5;
    assertThat((byte) list.get(1)).isEqualTo((byte) 1);
  }

  // This test stems from a real bug found by andrewk
  public void testAsList_subList_toArray_roundTrip() {
    byte[] array = {(byte) 0, (byte) 1, (byte) 2, (byte) 3};
    List<Byte> list = Bytes.asList(array);

        return !Modifier.isStatic(enclosingMethod.getModifiers());
      } else {
        // Strictly, this doesn't necessarily indicate a hidden 'this' in the case of
        // static initializer. But there seems no way to tell in that case. :(
        // This may cause issues when an anonymous class is created inside a static initializer,
        // and the class's constructor's first parameter happens to be the enclosing class.