*
   * @param formal The type whose type variables or itself is mapped to other type(s). It's almost
   *     always a bug if {@code formal} isn't a type variable and contains no type variable. Make
   *     sure you are passing the two parameters in the right order.
   * @param actual The type that the formal type variable(s) are mapped to. It can be or contain yet

   * add the suppression to the whole method (which turns off checking for a large section of code),
   * or extract a variable, and put the suppression on that. However, a local variable typically
   * doesn't work: Because nullness analyses typically infer the nullness of local variables,
   * there's no way to assign a {@code @Nullable T} to a field {@code T foo;} and instruct the

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

  public <T> void testCaptureTypeParameter() throws Exception {
    TypeVariable<?> variable = new TypeParameter<T>() {}.typeVariable;
    TypeVariable<?> expected =
        TypeParameterTest.class.getDeclaredMethod("testCaptureTypeParameter")
            .getTypeParameters()[0];
    assertEquals(expected, variable);
  }

  public void testConcreteTypeRejected() {

   * add the suppression to the whole method (which turns off checking for a large section of code),
   * or extract a variable, and put the suppression on that. However, a local variable typically
   * doesn't work: Because nullness analyses typically infer the nullness of local variables,
   * there's no way to assign a {@code @Nullable T} to a field {@code T foo;} and instruct the

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code