/** Basic sanity tests for classes in {@code common.base}. */

@GwtIncompatible
public class PackageSanityTests extends AbstractPackageSanityTests {
  public PackageSanityTests() {
    // package private classes like FunctionalEquivalence are tested through the public API.
    publicApiOnly();
  }

/**
 * Base class for services that can implement {@link #startUp}, {@link #run} and {@link #shutDown}
 * methods. This class uses a single thread to execute the service; consider {@link AbstractService}
 * if you would like to manage any threading manually.
 *
 * @author Jesse Wilson
 * @since 1.0
 */
@GwtIncompatible
@J2ktIncompatible
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see https://goo.gl/pRV3Yn for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see https://goo.gl/pRV3Yn for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see https://goo.gl/pRV3Yn for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

 * used). We could probably fix the problem by adding dummy methods to that class, but that is
 * starting to sound harder than taking the superclass approach, which I've been coming to like,
 * anyway, since it doesn't require us to declare dummy methods (though occasionally constructors)
 * and make types non-final.
 */
@GwtCompatible(emulated = true)
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see https://goo.gl/pRV3Yn for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

    The problem is that GWT responds poorly to two .gwt.xml files in the same
    Java package; see https://goo.gl/pRV3Yn for details.

    The summary is that it ignores one file in favor of the other.
    util.concurrent, like nearly all our packages, has two .gwt.xml files: one
    for prod and one for tests. However, unlike our other packages, as of this
    writing it has test supersource but no prod supersource.

 * default} methods. Specifically, it forwards calls only for methods that existed <a
 * href="https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/Iterator.html">before {@code default}
 * methods were introduced</a>. For newer methods, like {@code forEachRemaining}, it inherits their
 * default implementations. When those implementations invoke methods, they invoke methods on the
 * {@code ForwardingIterator}.
 *
 * @author Kevin Bourrillion
 * @since 2.0
 */

 * test with reference to the same "lock-like object", and then their interactions with that object
 * are choreographed via the various methods on this class.
 *
 * <p>A "lock-like object" is really any object that may be used for concurrency control. If the
 * {@link #callAndAssertBlocks} method is ever called in a test, the lock-like object must have a