* by stripping annotated methods entirely, and if we strip this method, then JUnit would just
       * run the supermethod as usual.
       *
       * TODO: b/292578973: Use @AndroidIncompatible if we change our system to keep the methods in
       * place but to have the test runner skip them. However, note that if we choose to *both*
       * strip the methods *and* have the test runner not run them (for some unusual cases in which

                  </fileset>
                </copy>
                <!-- TODO(cpovirk): If we continue stripping these once we use @ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault, then we should strip @ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault, too, to reflect that the classes are *not* fully annotated. But hopefully we can stop stripping them, as https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/184 should make possible. -->

 *       that we could probably work around. Or we could manually strip the test from open-source
 *       Guava while continuing to run it internally, as we do with many other tests. This would
 *       suffice because we our Android users and tests are using the open-source version, which
 *       would no longer have the problematic test. But why bother when we can instead strip it with
 *       a more precisely named annotation?

 *       that we could probably work around. Or we could manually strip the test from open-source
 *       Guava while continuing to run it internally, as we do with many other tests. This would
 *       suffice because we our Android users and tests are using the open-source version, which
 *       would no longer have the problematic test. But why bother when we can instead strip it with
 *       a more precisely named annotation?

   * PackageSanityTests. (The test would run on the JVM, too, if not for the suppression below, and
   * that would be a problem because it violates small-test rules. Note that we strip the
   * suppression externally, but it's OK because we don't enforce test-size rules there.)
   *
   * We'd just use PackageSanityTests directly, saving us from needing this separate type, but we're

   * PackageSanityTests. (The test would run on the JVM, too, if not for the suppression below, and
   * that would be a problem because it violates small-test rules. Note that we strip the
   * suppression externally, but it's OK because we don't enforce test-size rules there.)
   *
   * We'd just use PackageSanityTests directly, saving us from needing this separate type, but we're

   *       2001:db8::1}
   * </ul>
   *
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if the specifier is not valid.
   */
  public static HostSpecifier fromValid(String specifier) {
    // Verify that no port was specified, and strip optional brackets from
    // IPv6 literals.
    HostAndPort parsedHost = HostAndPort.fromString(specifier);
    Preconditions.checkArgument(!parsedHost.hasPort());
    String host = parsedHost.getHost();

import junit.framework.TestSuite;

/**
 * Unit test for {@link Resources}.
 *
 * @author Chris Nokleberg
 */

public class ResourcesTest extends IoTestCase {

  @AndroidIncompatible // wouldn't run anyway, but strip the source entirely because of b/230620681
  public static TestSuite suite() {
    TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
    suite.addTest(
        ByteSourceTester.tests(

import junit.framework.TestSuite;

/**
 * Unit test for {@link Resources}.
 *
 * @author Chris Nokleberg
 */

public class ResourcesTest extends IoTestCase {

  @AndroidIncompatible // wouldn't run anyway, but strip the source entirely because of b/230620681
  public static TestSuite suite() {
    TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
    suite.addTest(
        ByteSourceTester.tests(

   * environment that forces Futures.getChecked to its fallback WeakSetValidator. One awful way of
   * doing so would be to derive a separate test library by using remove_from_jar to strip out
   * ClassValueValidator.
   *
   * Fortunately, we get pretty good coverage "by accident": We run all these tests against the
   * *backport*, where ClassValueValidator is not present.
   */