* Bei `PUT`-Anfragen an `/items/{item_id}` den Body als JSON lesen:
    * Prüfen, ob er ein erforderliches Attribut `name` hat, das ein `str` sein muss.
    * Prüfen, ob er ein erforderliches Attribut `price` hat, das ein `float` sein muss.
    * Prüfen, ob er ein optionales Attribut `is_offer` hat, das ein `bool` sein muss, falls vorhanden.
    * All dies würde auch für tief verschachtelte JSON-Objekte funktionieren.

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:1.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:1.0
     * a:2.0
     * </pre>
     */
    @Test
    void testEqual() {
        ResolutionNode a1n = createResolutionNode(a1);
        ResolutionNode a2n = createResolutionNode(a2);

        assertResolveConflict(a1n, a1n, a2n);
    }

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:1.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:2.0

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:1.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:1.0
     * a:2.0
     * </pre>
     */
    @Test
    void testEqual() {
        ResolutionNode a1n = createResolutionNode(a1);
        ResolutionNode a2n = createResolutionNode(a2);

        assertResolveConflict(a1n, a1n, a2n);
    }

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:2.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:2.0

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:2.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:1.0
     * a:2.0
     * </pre>
     */
    @Test
    void testEqual() {
        ResolutionNode a1n = createResolutionNode(a1);
        ResolutionNode a2n = createResolutionNode(a2);

        assertResolveConflict(a2n, a1n, a2n);
    }

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:2.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:2.0

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:1.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:1.0
     * a:2.0
     * </pre>
     */
    @Test
    void testEqual() {
        ResolutionNode a1n = createResolutionNode(a1);
        ResolutionNode a2n = createResolutionNode(a2);

        assertResolveConflict(a1n, a1n, a2n);
    }

    /**
     * Tests that <code>a:2.0</code> wins in the scenario:
     * <pre>
     * a:2.0

        assertEquals(createSet(new Object[] {a.artifact, modifiedC}), res.getArtifacts(), "Check artifact list");
        Artifact artifact = getArtifact("c", res.getArtifacts());
        // local wins now, and irrelevant if not local as test/provided aren't transitive
        // assertEquals( Artifact.SCOPE_COMPILE, artifact.getArtifactScope(), "Check artifactScope" );

        for (Lifecycle lifecycle : getLifeCycles()) {
            logger.debug("Lifecycle {}", lifecycle);

            for (String phase : lifecycle.getPhases()) {
                // The first definition wins.
                if (!phaseToLifecycleMap.containsKey(phase)) {
                    phaseToLifecycleMap.put(phase, lifecycle);
                } else if (logger.isWarnEnabled()) {

* resources
* providers
* services
* injectables
* components

## **FastAPI** plug-ins

Integrations and "plug-ins" can be built using the **Dependency Injection** system. But in fact, there is actually **no need to create "plug-ins"**, as by using dependencies it's possible to declare an infinite number of integrations and interactions that become available to your *path operation functions*.

I have been avoiding the creation of a new framework for several years. First I tried to solve all the features covered by **FastAPI** using many different frameworks, plug-ins, and tools.

   * The HTTP <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-evans-palmer-key-pinning">{@code
   * Public-Key-Pins}</a> header field name.
   *
   * @since 15.0
   */
  public static final String PUBLIC_KEY_PINS = "Public-Key-Pins";
  /**
   * The HTTP <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-evans-palmer-key-pinning">{@code
   * Public-Key-Pins-Report-Only}</a> header field name.
   *
   * @since 15.0
   */