assertThat(expected).hasMessageThat().contains("connected");

    // adjacent below
    assertEquals(Range.closedOpen(4, 4), range.intersection(Range.closedOpen(2, 4)));

    // overlap below
    assertEquals(Range.closed(4, 6), range.intersection(Range.closed(2, 6)));

    // enclosed with same start
    assertEquals(Range.closed(4, 6), range.intersection(Range.closed(4, 6)));

            // Check that no two flags overlap (except combined flags)
            for (int i = 0; i < flags.length; i++) {
                for (int j = i + 1; j < flags.length; j++) {
                    assertEquals(0, flags[i] & flags[j], String.format("Flags at index %d and %d should not overlap", i, j));
                }
            }
        }
    }

    @Nested

                    Set.of() // errors
                    );

            UpgradeResult result2 = new UpgradeResult(
                    Set.of(pom1), // processed (overlap)
                    Set.of(pom1, pom2), // modified (overlap + new)
                    Set.of() // errors
                    );

            UpgradeResult merged = result1.merge(result2);

      TYPE_PRIORITY, TYPE_RST_STREAM, TYPE_GOAWAY, TYPE_WINDOW_UPDATE -> return BINARY[flags]
    }
    val result = if (flags < FLAGS.size) FLAGS[flags]!! else BINARY[flags]
    // Special case types that have overlap flag values.
    return when {
      type == TYPE_PUSH_PROMISE && flags and FLAG_END_PUSH_PROMISE != 0 -> {
        result.replace("HEADERS", "PUSH_PROMISE") // TODO: Avoid allocation.
      }

    assertThat(expected).hasMessageThat().contains("connected");

    // adjacent below
    assertEquals(Range.closedOpen(4, 4), range.intersection(Range.closedOpen(2, 4)));

    // overlap below
    assertEquals(Range.closed(4, 6), range.intersection(Range.closed(2, 6)));

    // enclosed with same start
    assertEquals(Range.closed(4, 6), range.intersection(Range.closed(4, 6)));

    validations:
      required: true

  - type: textarea
    id: orthogonality
    attributes:
      label: "Orthogonality: How does this change interact or overlap with existing features?"
      description: "Is the goal of this change a performance improvement? If so, what quantifiable improvement should we expect? How would we measure it?"
    validations:
      required: false

   * Overlapping ranges and empty ranges are forbidden, though adjacent ranges are permitted and
   * will be merged.
   *
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if any ranges overlap or are empty
   * @since 21.0
   */
  public static <C extends Comparable<?>> ImmutableRangeSet<C> copyOf(Iterable<Range<C>> ranges) {
    return new ImmutableRangeSet.Builder<C>().addAll(ranges).build();
  }

        checkInvalidRange("[1.0,1.0)");
        checkInvalidRange("(1.0,1.0)");
        checkInvalidRange("[1.1,1.0]");
        checkInvalidRange("[1.0,1.2),1.3");
        // overlap
        checkInvalidRange("[1.0,1.2),(1.1,1.3]");
        // overlap
        checkInvalidRange("[1.1,1.3),(1.0,1.2]");
        // ordering
        checkInvalidRange("(1.1,1.2],[1.0,1.1)");
    }

    @Test

Also, the best approach was to use already existing standards.

So, before even starting to code **FastAPI**, I spent several months studying the specs for OpenAPI, JSON Schema, OAuth2, etc. Understanding their relationship, overlap, and differences.

## Design { #design }

Then I spent some time designing the developer "API" I wanted to have as a user (as a developer using FastAPI).

                assertNotEquals(attributes[i], attributes[j], "Attributes should have distinct values");
                assertEquals(0, attributes[i] & attributes[j], "Attributes should not overlap in bit patterns");
            }
        }
    }

    @Test
    @DisplayName("Should have resource types with power-of-2 values")
    void testResourceTypeBitPatterns() {