void testDefaultPolicy() throws Exception {
        MetadataGraphEdge res;

        res = policy.apply(e1, e2);
        assertEquals("1.1", res.getVersion(), "Wrong depth edge selected");

        res = policy.apply(e1, e3);
        assertEquals("1.2", res.getVersion(), "Wrong version edge selected");
    }
    // ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   *
   * <p>This method refines {@link Collection#remove} to further specify that it <b>may not</b>
   * throw an exception in response to {@code element} being null or of the wrong type.
   *
   * <p>To both remove the element and obtain the previous count of that element, use {@link
   * #remove(Object, int) remove}{@code (element, 1)} instead.
   *

import com.google.common.annotations.GwtCompatible;

/**
 * A type which will never be used as the element type of any collection in our tests, and so can be
 * used to test how a Collection behaves when given input of the wrong type.
 */
@GwtCompatible
public enum WrongType {
  VALUE

    for (QuantilesAlgorithm algorithm : NON_REFERENCE_ALGORITHMS) {
      Map<Integer, Double> quantiles = algorithm.multipleQuantiles(indexes, 100, dataset.clone());
      assertWithMessage("Wrong keys from " + algorithm).that(quantiles.keySet()).isEqualTo(indexes);
      for (int i : indexes) {
        assertWithMessage("Mismatch between %s and %s at %s", algorithm, REFERENCE_ALGORITHM, i)
            .that(quantiles.get(i))

 *       probably require adding the dep to various ACLs, license files, and Proguard
 *       configurations, and there's always the potential that something will go wrong. It
 *       <i>probably</i> won't, since the deps are needed only in tests (and maybe someday in
 *       testlib), but why bother?
 *   <li>Stripping code entirely might help us keep under the method limit someday. Even if it never

     */
    @Override
    public boolean verifySignature ( byte[] buffer, int i, int size ) {
        // observed too that signatures on error responses are sometimes wrong??
        // Looks like the failure case also is just reflecting back the signature we sent

        // with SMB3's negotiation validation it's no longer possible to ignore this (on the validation response)

   * transitionService in the wrong order due to a race. Due to the fact that it is a race this test
   * isn't guaranteed to expose the issue, but it is at least likely to become flaky if the race
   * sneaks back in, and in this case flaky means something is definitely wrong.
   *
   * <p>Before the bug was fixed this test would fail at least 30% of the time.
   */

    // TODO: move this to invariant checks once the appropriate hook exists?
    super.expectContents(expected);
    for (Entry<K, V> entry : expected) {
      assertEquals(
          "Wrong value for key " + entry.getKey(), entry.getValue(), getMap().get(entry.getKey()));
    }
  }

  protected final void expectReplacement(Entry<K, V> newEntry) {

    // unordered endpoints not OK for directed graph (undefined behavior)
    assertThat(edges).doesNotContain(EndpointPair.unordered(N1, N2));

    assertThat(edges).doesNotContain(EndpointPair.ordered(N2, N1)); // wrong order
    assertThat(edges).doesNotContain(EndpointPair.ordered(N2, N2)); // edge not present
    assertThat(edges).doesNotContain(EndpointPair.ordered(N3, N4)); // nodes not in graph
  }

    // unordered endpoints not OK for directed graph (undefined behavior)
    assertThat(edges).doesNotContain(EndpointPair.unordered(N1, N2));

    assertThat(edges).doesNotContain(EndpointPair.ordered(N2, N1)); // wrong order
    assertThat(edges).doesNotContain(EndpointPair.ordered(N2, N2)); // edge not present
    assertThat(edges).doesNotContain(EndpointPair.ordered(N3, N4)); // nodes not in graph
  }