@GwtCompatible
@Ignore // Affects only Android test runner, which respects JUnit 4 annotations on JUnit 3 tests.
public class AbstractSetTester<E> extends AbstractCollectionTester<E> {
  /*
   * Previously we had a field named set that was initialized to the value of
   * collection in setUp(), but that caused problems when a tester changed the
   * value of set or collection but not both.
   */
  protected final Set<E> getSet() {

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same

<module>
<source path="">
  <!-- Hack to keep collect from hiding collect.testing supersource: -->
  <exclude name="**/testing/**"/>
</source>

<!--
    We used to set this only for packages that had manual supersource. That
    worked everywhere that I know of except for one place: when running the GWT
    util.concurrent tests under Guava.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same

 *
 * <p>The maps produced by {@code MapMaker} are serializable, and the deserialized maps retain all
 * the configuration properties of the original map. During deserialization, if the original map had
 * used weak references, the entries are reconstructed as they were, but it's not unlikely they'll
 * be quickly garbage-collected before they are ever accessed.
 *

 * Tasks execute with the same happens-before order that the function calls to {@link #submit} and
 * {@link #submitAsync} that submitted those tasks had.
 *
 * <p>This class has limited support for cancellation and other "early completions":
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>While calls to {@code submit} and {@code submitAsync} return a {@code Future} that can be

     * so that we can pass non-null instances of the interface.
     *
     * (Currently it's safe to pass instances for which compareTo() always
     * returns 0, but if we had a SingletonImmutableSortedSet, this might no
     * longer be the case.)
     *
     * javax.naming.Name and java.util.concurrent.Delayed might work, but

   *
   * However, for a variety of reasons, Google developers have written a ton of code over the past
   * decade that assumes that they can use checkNotNull for non-precondition checks. I had hoped to
   * take a principled stand on this, but the amount of such code is simply overwhelming. To avoid
   * creating a lot of compile errors that users would not find to be informative, we're giving in

for she had read several nice little histories about children who
had got burnt, and eaten up by wild beasts and other unpleasant
things, all because they WOULD not remember the simple rules
their friends had taught them:  such as, that a red-hot poker
will burn you if you hold it too long; and that if you cut your
finger VERY deeply with a knife, it usually bleeds; and she had