}

        // We are forcing the use of the plugin realm for all lookups that might occur during
        // the lifecycle that is part of the lookup. Here we are specifically trying to keep
        // lookups that occur in contextualize calls in line with the right realm.
        ClassRealm oldLookupRealm = container.setLookupRealm(pluginRealm);

        ArtifactResolutionResult result = resolve(request);

        // We have collected all the problems so let's mimic the way the old code worked and just blow up right here.
        // That's right lets just let it rip right here and send a big incomprehensible blob of text at unsuspecting
        // users. Bad dog!

        resolutionErrorHandler.throwErrors(request, result);

        return result;
    }

          Arrays.sort(sortedKs, comparator);
          Object[] sortedValues = new Object[size];

          // We might, somehow, be able to reorder values in-place.  But it doesn't seem like
          // there's a way around creating the separate sortedKeys array, and if we're allocating
          // one array of size n, we might as well allocate two -- to say nothing of the allocation
          // done in Arrays.sort.

 * comparator utilities, see either {@code Comparator} itself (for Java 8+), or {@code
 * com.google.common.collect.Ordering} (otherwise).
 *
 * <h3>Relationship to {@code Ordering}</h3>
 *
 * <p>In light of the significant enhancements to {@code Comparator} in Java 8, the overwhelming
 * majority of usages of {@code Ordering} can be written using only built-in JDK APIs. This class is

   * Objects.equals(o, element)} would return {@code true}. Otherwise returns {@code false}, even in
   * cases where {@link Collection#contains} might throw {@link NullPointerException} or {@link
   * ClassCastException}.
   */
  // <? extends @Nullable Object> instead of <?> because of Kotlin b/189937072, discussed in Joiner.
  public static boolean contains(

     * doesn't need this suppression, but we keep it to minimize diffs.) Generally be more clear
     * about when we have an Object[] vs. a Comparable[] or other array type in internalArray? If we
     * used Object[], we might be able to optimize toArray() to use clone() sometimes. (See
     * cl/592273615 and cl/592273683.)
     */
    @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
    public Builder(Comparator<? super E> comparator) {

    // then we know it must have given a pending toString value earlier. If not, then the future
    // completed after the timeout expired, and the message might be success.
    if (isDone()) {
      throw new TimeoutException(message + " but future completed as timeout expired");
    }
    throw new TimeoutException(message + " for " + futureToString);
  }

  /**

     * Even though it's weird to pass a defaultValue that is null, some callers do so. Those who
     * pass a literal "null" should probably just use `get`, but I would expect other callers to
     * pass an expression that *might* be null. This could happen with:
     *
     * - a `getFooOrDefault(@CheckForNull Foo defaultValue)` method that returns
     *   `map.getOrDefault(FOO_KEY, defaultValue)`
     *

    @ParametricNullness private final V right;

    static <V extends @Nullable Object> ValueDifference<V> create(
        @ParametricNullness V left, @ParametricNullness V right) {
      return new ValueDifferenceImpl<>(left, right);
    }

    private ValueDifferenceImpl(@ParametricNullness V left, @ParametricNullness V right) {
      this.left = left;
      this.right = right;
    }

    @Override

            "five", 5,
            "six", 6,
            "seven", 7,
            "eight", 8),
        "one",
        1,
        "two",
        2,
        "three",
        3,
        "four",
        4,
        "five",
        5,
        "six",
        6,
        "seven",
        7,
        "eight",
        8);
    assertMapEquals(
        ImmutableMap.of(
            "one", 1,