*       suite()} method with {@code Suppress}. Would {@code FooTest} itself be suppressed, too?
 *   <li>In at least one case, a use of {@code sun.misc.FpUtils}, the test will not even
 *       <i>compile</i> against Android. Now, this might be an artifact of our build system, one
 *       that we could probably work around. Or we could manually strip the test from open-source

      fail();
    } catch (NullPointerException expected) {
    }

    /*
     * 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();
    // Be extra thorough in case internal state was corrupted by the expected null.

  /*
   * J2CL's EnumMap does not need the Class instance, so we can use Object.class instead. (Or we
   * could use null, but that messes with our nullness checking, including under J2KT. We could
   * probably work around it by changing how we annotate the J2CL EnumMap, but that's probably more
   * trouble than just using Object.class.)
   *

 *       suite()} method with {@code Suppress}. Would {@code FooTest} itself be suppressed, too?
 *   <li>In at least one case, a use of {@code sun.misc.FpUtils}, the test will not even
 *       <i>compile</i> against Android. Now, this might be an artifact of our build system, one
 *       that we could probably work around. Or we could manually strip the test from open-source

   * FeatureSpecificTestSuiteBuilder.suppressing()}.
   */
  /*
   * TODO(cpovirk): or we could make HOLES_FORBIDDEN a feature. Or we could declare that
   * implementations are permitted to throw IAE if a hole is requested, and we could update
   * test*Hole to permit IAE. (But might this ignore genuine bugs?) But see the TODO above
   * testLower, which could make this all unnecessary
   */
  public static Method[] getHoleMethods() {

   * insists upon doing. It then runs the test, which behaves exactly like this package's existing
   * PackageSanityTests. (The test would run on the JVM, too, if not for the suppression below, and
   * that would be a problem because it violates small-test rules. Note that we strip the
   * suppression externally, but it's OK because we don't enforce test-size rules there.)
   *

   * insists upon doing. It then runs the test, which behaves exactly like this package's existing
   * PackageSanityTests. (The test would run on the JVM, too, if not for the suppression below, and
   * that would be a problem because it violates small-test rules. Note that we strip the
   * suppression externally, but it's OK because we don't enforce test-size rules there.)
   *

    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) {
    for (E element : elements) {

    throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
  }

  @Override
  protected Map<TypeToken<? extends B>, B> delegate() {
    return delegate;
  }

  @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") // value could not get in if not a T
  @CheckForNull
  private <T extends B> T trustedGet(TypeToken<T> type) {
    return (T) delegate.get(type);
  }

 * the beginning, thanks to using different `-source -target` values for compiling our `-jre` and
 * `-android` "flavors.")
 *
 * (We could consider releasing a listenablefuture:1.0.1 someday. But we would want to look into how
 * that affects users, especially users of the Android Gradle Plugin, since the plugin developers
 * put in a special hack for us: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/131431257)
 */