if metadata.VersionID == "" {
			vid = nullVersionID
		}
		vidMap[vid]++
		etags[index] = metadata.Metadata["etag"]
	}

	for _, count := range vidMap {
		// do we have enough common versions
		// that have enough quorum to satisfy
		// the etag.
		if count >= quorum {
			return etags
		}
	}

	return make([]string, len(partsMetadata))
}

   * {@code long} value in little-endian order.
   *
   * @throws IllegalStateException if {@code bits() < 64}
   */
  public abstract long asLong();

  /**
   * If this hashcode has enough bits, returns {@code asLong()}, otherwise returns a {@code long}
   * value with {@code asBytes()} as the least-significant bytes and {@code 0x00} as the remaining
   * most-significant bytes.
   *

    /*
     * In principle, a Multimap implementation could add e3 first before failing on the null. But
     * that seems unlikely enough to be worth complicating the test over, especially if there's any
     * chance that a permissive test could mask a bug.
     */
    expectUnchanged();

   * {@code long} value in little-endian order.
   *
   * @throws IllegalStateException if {@code bits() < 64}
   */
  public abstract long asLong();

  /**
   * If this hashcode has enough bits, returns {@code asLong()}, otherwise returns a {@code long}
   * value with {@code asBytes()} as the least-significant bytes and {@code 0x00} as the remaining
   * most-significant bytes.
   *

  }

  public void testGreatestOfIterable_simple() {
    /*
     * If greatestOf() promised to be implemented as reverse().leastOf(), this
     * test would be enough. It doesn't... but we'll cheat and act like it does
     * anyway. There's a comment there to remind us to fix this if we change it.
     */
    List<Integer> list = asList(3, 1, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 3);

  }

  public void testGreatestOfIterable_simple() {
    /*
     * If greatestOf() promised to be implemented as reverse().leastOf(), this
     * test would be enough. It doesn't... but we'll cheat and act like it does
     * anyway. There's a comment there to remind us to fix this if we change it.
     */
    List<Integer> list = asList(3, 1, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 3);

    expected.addAll(index, elements);
    expectContents(expected);
  }

  /*
   * TODO: if we're testing a list, we could check indexOf(). (Doing it in
   * AbstractListTester isn't enough because many tests that run on lists don't
   * extends AbstractListTester.) We could also iterate over all elements to
   * verify absence
   */
  protected void expectMissing(E... elements) {

      checkNotNull(element);
      copyIfNecessary();
      if (n == elements.length) {
        sortAndDedup();
        /**
         * sortAndDedup may have made enough room for this element, but that's not necessarily good
         * enough. Consider, for example, the case where we have a buffer of size (n+1), add n
         * distinct elements, and add the last element over again many times over. We don't want a

            tests themselves and not the code being tested that needs that access, though there's no
            obvious way to ensure that.

            We could consider arranging things so that only the tests we know need this would get
            the add-opens. Right now that doesn't seem worth the effort, though.
        -->
        <test.add.opens>
          --add-opens java.base/java.lang=ALL-UNNAMED

            tests themselves and not the code being tested that needs that access, though there's no
            obvious way to ensure that.

            We could consider arranging things so that only the tests we know need this would get
            the add-opens. Right now that doesn't seem worth the effort, though.
        -->
        <test.add.opens>
          --add-opens java.base/java.lang=ALL-UNNAMED