return {"message": "Not timed"}


@router.get("/timed")
async def timed():
    return {"message": "It's the time of my life"}

    // we try hard to make them robust in practice.  We could additionally try to add in a system
    // load timeout multiplier.  Or we could try to use a CPU time bound instead of wall clock time
    // bound.  But these ideas are harder to implement.  We do not try to detect or handle a
    // user-specified -XX:+DisableExplicitGC.
    //
    // TODO(user): Consider using

@router.get("/timed")
async def timed():
    return {"message": "It's the time of my life"}

    assert response.json() == {"message": "Not timed"}
    assert "X-Response-Time" not in response.headers


def test_get_timed(client: TestClient):
    response = client.get("/timed")
    assert response.json() == {"message": "It's the time of my life"}
    assert "X-Response-Time" in response.headers

          response: Response?,
        ) {
          t.printStackTrace(System.out)
          latch.countDown()
        }
      },
    )

    check(latch.await(30, TimeUnit.SECONDS)) { "Timed out waiting for test $number to finish." }
    val endNanos = System.nanoTime()
    val tookMs = TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS.toMillis(endNanos - startNanos.get())
    println("Took ${tookMs}ms")
  }

    // we try hard to make them robust in practice.  We could additionally try to add in a system
    // load timeout multiplier.  Or we could try to use a CPU time bound instead of wall clock time
    // bound.  But these ideas are harder to implement.  We do not try to detect or handle a
    // user-specified -XX:+DisableExplicitGC.
    //
    // TODO(user): Consider using

      // timed out. e.g. if we weren't event able to grab the lock within the timeout we would never
      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead
      // to a confusing error message.
      throw new TimeoutException("Timed out waiting for " + this + " to reach the RUNNING state.");
    }
  }

  @Override

      // timed out. e.g. if we weren't event able to grab the lock within the timeout we would never
      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead
      // to a confusing error message.
      throw new TimeoutException("Timed out waiting for " + this + " to reach the RUNNING state.");
    }
  }

  @Override

    }

    @Test
    void testStringConstructor() {
        // Test the constructor with a message
        String message = "Connection timed out.";
        ConnectionTimeoutException exception = new ConnectionTimeoutException(message);
        assertEquals(message, exception.getMessage(), "Message should match the provided string");

  //   so that it looks like we timed out even though we didn't. For comparison FutureTask respects
  //   completion preferably and AQS is non-deterministic (depends on where in the queue the waiter
  //   is). If we wanted to be strict about it, we could store the unpark() time in the Waiter node
  //   and we could use that to make a decision about whether or not we timed out prior to being
  //   unparked.