*       suffice because we our Android users and tests are using the open-source version, which
 *       would no longer have the problematic test. But why bother when we can instead strip it with
 *       a more precisely named annotation?
 *   <li>While a dependency on Android ought to be easy if it's for annotations only, it will

      fail();
    } catch (VerifyException expected) {
      checkMessage(expected);
    }
  }

  @J2ktIncompatible
  @GwtIncompatible // NullPointerTester
  public void testNullPointers() {
    // Don't bother testing: Verify is like Preconditions. See the discussion on that class.
  }

  private static final Object IGNORE_ME =
      new Object() {
        @Override
        public String toString() {

 *
 * <p>Lookups by row key are often faster than lookups by column key, because the data is stored in
 * a {@code Map<R, Map<C, V>>}. A method call like {@code column(columnKey).get(rowKey)} still runs
 * quickly, since the row key is provided. However, {@code column(columnKey).size()} takes longer,
 * since an iteration across all row keys occurs.
 *

  private static final String LOWER = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
  private static final String UPPER = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ";

  public void testToLowerCase() {
    assertEquals(LOWER, Ascii.toLowerCase(UPPER));
    assertSame(LOWER, Ascii.toLowerCase(LOWER));
    assertEquals(IGNORED, Ascii.toLowerCase(IGNORED));

  public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object rowKey, @CheckForNull Object columnKey) {
    return delegate().contains(rowKey, columnKey);
  }

  @Override
  public boolean containsColumn(@CheckForNull Object columnKey) {
    return delegate().containsColumn(columnKey);
  }

  @Override
  public boolean containsRow(@CheckForNull Object rowKey) {
    return delegate().containsRow(rowKey);
  }

  @Override

    @Override
    public boolean containsRow(Object rowKey) {
      assertTrue(Thread.holdsLock(mutex));
      return delegate.containsRow(rowKey);
    }

    @Override
    public @Nullable V get(Object rowKey, Object columnKey) {
      assertTrue(Thread.holdsLock(mutex));
      return delegate.get(rowKey, columnKey);
    }

    @Override
    public @Nullable V put(R rowKey, C columnKey, V value) {

  public boolean contains(@CheckForNull Object rowKey, @CheckForNull Object columnKey) {
    return delegate().contains(rowKey, columnKey);
  }

  @Override
  public boolean containsColumn(@CheckForNull Object columnKey) {
    return delegate().containsColumn(columnKey);
  }

  @Override
  public boolean containsRow(@CheckForNull Object rowKey) {
    return delegate().containsRow(rowKey);
  }

  @Override

  private OverflowAvoidingLockSupport() {}

  static void parkNanos(@CheckForNull Object blocker, long nanos) {
    // Even in the extremely unlikely event that a thread unblocks itself early after only 68 years,
    // this is indistinguishable from a spurious wakeup, which LockSupport allows.
    LockSupport.parkNanos(blocker, min(nanos, MAX_NANOSECONDS_THRESHOLD));
  }

 *       suffice because we our Android users and tests are using the open-source version, which
 *       would no longer have the problematic test. But why bother when we can instead strip it with
 *       a more precisely named annotation?
 *   <li>While a dependency on Android ought to be easy if it's for annotations only, it will

    }
  }

  public void testNulls() {
    /*
     * Don't bother testing. All non-primitive parameters are used only to construct error messages.
     * We never want to pass null for them, so we haven't annotated them to say that null is
     * allowed. But at the same time, it seems wasteful to bother inserting the checkNotNull calls
     * that NullPointerTester wants.
     *