return;
    }
    fail("Should get not equal to equal object error");
  }

  /**
   * Test EqualsTester with no equals or not equals objects. This checks proper handling of null,
   * incompatible class and reflexive tests
   */
  public void testTestEqualsEmptyLists() {
    equalsTester.addEqualityGroup(reference);
    equalsTester.testEquals();
  }

  /**

   * identical inputs: This sounds like it ought to be a problem here, since the goals of this class
   * include testing that {@code equals()} is reflexive and is tolerant of {@code null}. However,
   * there's no problem. The reason: {@link EqualsTester} tests {@code null} and identical inputs
   * directly against {@code equals()} rather than through the {@code Equivalence}.
   */

        assertEquals(key1, key2);
        assertNotEquals(key1, key3);
        assertNotEquals(key1, null);
        assertNotEquals(key1, "not a lease key");
        assertEquals(key1, key1); // reflexive
    }

    @Test
    @DisplayName("Should implement hashCode correctly")
    void testHashCode() {

   * </ul>
   *
   * <p>Note that if {@code a.encloses(b)}, then {@code b.contains(v)} implies {@code
   * a.contains(v)}, but as the last two examples illustrate, the converse is not always true.
   *
   * <p>Being reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive, the {@code encloses} relation defines a
   * <i>partial order</i> over ranges. There exists a unique {@linkplain Range#all maximal} range

   * </ul>
   *
   * <p>Note that if {@code a.encloses(b)}, then {@code b.contains(v)} implies {@code
   * a.contains(v)}, but as the last two examples illustrate, the converse is not always true.
   *
   * <p>Being reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive, the {@code encloses} relation defines a
   * <i>partial order</i> over ranges. There exists a unique {@linkplain Range#all maximal} range

   * all references {@code x}, {@code y}, and {@code z} (any of which may be null):
   *
   * <ul>
   *   <li>{@code equivalent(x, x)} is true (<i>reflexive</i> property)
   *   <li>{@code equivalent(x, y)} and {@code equivalent(y, x)} each return the same result
   *       (<i>symmetric</i> property)

   *   <li>With finite tolerance, {@code Double.POSITIVE_INFINITY} and {@code
   *       Double.NEGATIVE_INFINITY} are fuzzily equal only to themselves.
   * </ul>
   *
   * <p>This is reflexive and symmetric, but not transitive, so it is not an
   * equivalence relation and not suitable for use in {@link Object#equals}
   * implementations.
   *

@GwtCompatible
final class SneakyThrows<T extends Throwable> {
  /**
   * Throws {@code t} as if it were an unchecked {@link Throwable}.
   *
   * <p>This method is useful primarily when we make a reflective call to a method with no {@code
   * throws} clause: Java forces us to handle an arbitrary {@link Throwable} from that method,
   * rather than just the {@link RuntimeException} or {@link Error} that should be possible. (And in

@GwtCompatible
final class SneakyThrows<T extends Throwable> {
  /**
   * Throws {@code t} as if it were an unchecked {@link Throwable}.
   *
   * <p>This method is useful primarily when we make a reflective call to a method with no {@code
   * throws} clause: Java forces us to handle an arbitrary {@link Throwable} from that method,
   * rather than just the {@link RuntimeException} or {@link Error} that should be possible. (And in

@GwtCompatible
final class SneakyThrows<T extends Throwable> {
  /**
   * Throws {@code t} as if it were an unchecked {@link Throwable}.
   *
   * <p>This method is useful primarily when we make a reflective call to a method with no {@code
   * throws} clause: Java forces us to handle an arbitrary {@link Throwable} from that method,
   * rather than just the {@link RuntimeException} or {@link Error} that should be possible. (And in