// Establish an ordering from lockB -> lockC
    lockB.lock();
    lockC.lock();
    lockB.unlock();
    lockC.unlock();

    // lockC -> writeLockA should fail.
    lockC.lock();
    PotentialDeadlockException expected =
        assertThrows(PotentialDeadlockException.class, () -> writeLockA.lock());
    checkMessage(expected, "LockC -> ReadWriteA", "LockB -> LockC", "ReadWriteA -> LockB");
  }

    // Establish an ordering from lockB -> lockC
    lockB.lock();
    lockC.lock();
    lockB.unlock();
    lockC.unlock();

    // lockC -> writeLockA should fail.
    lockC.lock();
    PotentialDeadlockException expected =
        assertThrows(PotentialDeadlockException.class, () -> writeLockA.lock());
    checkMessage(expected, "LockC -> ReadWriteA", "LockB -> LockC", "ReadWriteA -> LockB");
  }

 * happen, as it is possible that higher level application logic prevents the cyclic lock
 * acquisition from occurring. One example of a false positive is:
 *
 * <pre>
 * LockA -&gt; LockB -&gt; LockC
 * LockA -&gt; LockC -&gt; LockB
 * </pre>
 *
 * <p><strong>ReadWriteLocks</strong>
 *
 * <p>While {@code ReadWriteLock} instances have different properties and can form cycles without