try {
      range.intersection(Range.open(3, 5));
      fail();
    } catch (IllegalArgumentException expected) {
      // TODO(kevinb): convert the rest of this file to Truth someday
      assertThat(expected).hasMessageThat().contains("connected");
    }
    try {
      range.intersection(Range.closed(0, 2));
      fail();
    } catch (IllegalArgumentException expected) {

    try {
      range.intersection(Range.open(3, 5));
      fail();
    } catch (IllegalArgumentException expected) {
      // TODO(kevinb): convert the rest of this file to Truth someday
      assertThat(expected).hasMessageThat().contains("connected");
    }
    try {
      range.intersection(Range.closed(0, 2));
      fail();
    } catch (IllegalArgumentException expected) {

     * past them.)
     *
     * We could consider "lying" and omitting @CheckNotNull from all these fields. Normally, I'm not
     * a fan of that: What if we someday implement (presumably to be enabled during tests only)
     * bytecode rewriting that checks for any null value that passes through an API with a

            return "cause=[Someday...]";
          }
        };
    AbstractFuture<Object> testFuture3 = new AbstractFuture<Object>() {};
    testFuture3.setFuture(testFuture2);
    assertThat(testFuture3.toString())
        .matches(
            "[^\\[]+\\[status=PENDING, setFuture=\\[[^\\[]+\\[status=PENDING,"
                + " info=\\[cause=\\[Someday...]]]]]");
    testFuture2.set("result string");

            return "cause=[Someday...]";
          }
        };
    AbstractFuture<Object> testFuture3 = new AbstractFuture<Object>() {};
    testFuture3.setFuture(testFuture2);
    assertThat(testFuture3.toString())
        .matches(
            "[^\\[]+\\[status=PENDING, setFuture=\\[[^\\[]+\\[status=PENDING,"
                + " info=\\[cause=\\[Someday...]]]]]");
    testFuture2.set("result string");