SATISFIED_AND_OCCUPIED_BEFORE_ENTERING,
    SATISFIED_UNOCCUPIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_ENTERING,

    SATISFIED_BEFORE_WAITING,
    SATISFIED_WHILE_WAITING,
    SATISFIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_WAITING,
    UNSATISFIED_BEFORE_AND_WHILE_WAITING,
    UNSATISFIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_WAITING;

    @Override
    public String toString() {
      return CaseFormat.UPPER_UNDERSCORE.to(CaseFormat.UPPER_CAMEL, name());
    }

    SATISFIED_AND_OCCUPIED_BEFORE_ENTERING,
    SATISFIED_UNOCCUPIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_ENTERING,

    SATISFIED_BEFORE_WAITING,
    SATISFIED_WHILE_WAITING,
    SATISFIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_WAITING,
    UNSATISFIED_BEFORE_AND_WHILE_WAITING,
    UNSATISFIED_AND_INTERRUPTED_BEFORE_WAITING;

    @Override
    public String toString() {
      return CaseFormat.UPPER_UNDERSCORE.to(CaseFormat.UPPER_CAMEL, name());
    }

 * ordinary tests.
 *
 * <p>Failure of the expected event to occur within an implementation-defined "reasonable" time
 * period or an interrupt while waiting for the expected event will result in a {@link
 * RuntimeException}.
 *
 * <p>Here's an example that tests a {@code finalize} method:
 *
 * <pre>{@code
 * final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);

   * protect ourselves from that we want to make sure that tasks don't spin too much waiting for the
   * interrupting thread to complete the protocol.
   */
  /*
   * This test hangs (or maybe is just *very* slow) under Android.
   *
   * TODO(b/218700094): Ideally, get this to pass under Android. Failing that, convince ourselves

[19511] [INFO] Started server process [19511]
[19511] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19511] [INFO] Application startup complete.
[19513] [INFO] Started server process [19513]
[19513] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19513] [INFO] Application startup complete.
[19514] [INFO] Started server process [19514]
[19514] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19514] [INFO] Application startup complete.

In this scenario of "fast food burgers with your crush", as there is a lot of waiting 🕙, it makes a lot more sense to have a concurrent system ⏸🔀⏯.

This is the case for most of the web applications.

Many, many users, but your server is waiting 🕙 for their not-so-good connection to send their requests.

And then waiting 🕙 again for the responses to come back.

		panic("Failed to acquire read lock")
	}
	// fmt.Println("1st read lock acquired, waiting...")

	if !lrwm.GetRLock(ctx, "", "object1", time.Second) {
		panic("Failed to acquire read lock")
	}
	// fmt.Println("2nd read lock acquired, waiting...")

	go func() {
		time.Sleep(2 * time.Second)
		lrwm.RUnlock()
		// fmt.Println("1st read lock released, waiting...")
	}()

	go func() {
		time.Sleep(3 * time.Second)
		lrwm.RUnlock()

[19511] [INFO] Started server process [19511]
[19511] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19511] [INFO] Application startup complete.
[19513] [INFO] Started server process [19513]
[19513] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19513] [INFO] Application startup complete.
[19514] [INFO] Started server process [19514]
[19514] [INFO] Waiting for application startup.
[19514] [INFO] Application startup complete.

      return failFastResponse!!
    }

    val result = responseQueue.take()

    // If take() returned because we're shutting down, then enqueue another dead letter so that any
    // other threads waiting on take() will also return.
    if (result == DEAD_LETTER) responseQueue.add(DEAD_LETTER)

    return result
  }

  override fun peek(): MockResponse {

		// fmt.Println("1st read lock released, waiting...")
	}()

	go func() {
		time.Sleep(3 * testDrwMutexAcquireTimeout)
		drwm2.RUnlock(context.Background())
		// fmt.Println("2nd read lock released, waiting...")
	}()

	drwm3 := NewDRWMutex(ds, "simplelock")
	// fmt.Println("Trying to acquire write lock, waiting...")
	ctx3, cancel3 := context.WithCancel(context.Background())