Several times it has happened that there are PRs with 3, 5 or more approvals, probably because the description is appealing, but when I check the PRs, they are actually broken, have a bug, or don't solve the problem they claim to solve. 😅

    So, it's really important that you actually read and run the code, and let me know in the comments that you did. 🤓

     * Finish building an instance with the given slope, i.e. the rate of change of {@code y} with
     * respect to {@code x}. The slope must not be {@code NaN}. It may be infinite, in which case
     * the transformation is vertical. (If it is zero, the transformation is horizontal.)
     */
    public LinearTransformation withSlope(double slope) {
      checkArgument(!Double.isNaN(slope));
      if (isFinite(slope)) {

    double x1 = 1.2;
    double y1 = 3.4;
    double slope = Double.MIN_VALUE;
    LinearTransformation transformation = LinearTransformation.mapping(x1, y1).withSlope(slope);
    assertThat(transformation.isVertical()).isFalse();
    assertThat(transformation.isHorizontal()).isFalse();
    assertThat(transformation.slope()).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(slope);

    double x1 = 1.2;
    double y1 = 3.4;
    double slope = Double.MIN_VALUE;
    LinearTransformation transformation = LinearTransformation.mapping(x1, y1).withSlope(slope);
    assertThat(transformation.isVertical()).isFalse();
    assertThat(transformation.isHorizontal()).isFalse();
    assertThat(transformation.slope()).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(slope);

    assertThat(transformation.inverse().transform(y1 + yDelta))
        .isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR)
        .of(x1 + xDelta);
    assertThat(transformation.slope()).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(yDelta / xDelta);
    assertThat(transformation.inverse().slope()).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(xDelta / yDelta);
    assertThat(transformation.inverse()).isSameInstanceAs(transformation.inverse());

    assertThat(transformation.inverse().transform(y1 + yDelta))
        .isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR)
        .of(x1 + xDelta);
    assertThat(transformation.slope()).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(yDelta / xDelta);
    assertThat(transformation.inverse().slope()).isWithin(ALLOWED_ERROR).of(xDelta / yDelta);
    assertThat(transformation.inverse()).isSameInstanceAs(transformation.inverse());

---
name: Feature request
about: Suggest an idea
title: ''
labels: enhancement
assignees: ''

---

Start by telling us what problem you’re trying to solve. Often a solution already exists!

    conflict with the copy of ListenableFuture in guava itself. If users are
    using an older version of Guava or a build system other than Gradle, they
    may see class conflicts. If so, they can solve them by manually excluding
    the listenablefuture artifact or manually forcing their build systems to
    use 9999.0-....
  </description>
  <build>
    <plugins>
      <plugin>

But Facebook login doesn't support OpenID Connect. It has its own flavor of OAuth2.

### OpenID (not "OpenID Connect")

There was also an "OpenID" specification. That tried to solve the same thing as **OpenID Connect**, but was not based on OAuth2.

So, it was a complete additional system.

It is not very popular or used nowadays.

## OpenAPI

    // IDE tries to acquire its bytecode via the index, however,
    // the index doesn't cover classfiles from compiler output,
    // so the lowering fails.
    //
    // To solve the problem, we need to find all delegated properties with inline accessors
    // reachable from files that will be compiled, and include files these inline accessors