assertEquals(4, res.getVertices().size(), "wrong # of vertices in the resulting graph after resolver");
        assertEquals(
                2,
                res.getExcidentEdges(v1).size(),
                "wrong # of excident edges in the resulting graph entry after resolver");

        assertEquals(
                1,
                res.getIncidentEdges(v2).size(),

    void testDefaultPolicy() throws Exception {
        MetadataGraphEdge res;

        res = policy.apply(e1, e2);
        assertEquals("1.1", res.getVersion(), "Wrong depth edge selected");

        res = policy.apply(e1, e3);
        assertEquals("1.2", res.getVersion(), "Wrong version edge selected");
    }
    // ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            firDiagnostic as KtPsiDiagnostic,
            token,
        )
    }
    add(FirErrors.WRONG_ANNOTATION_TARGET) { firDiagnostic ->
        WrongAnnotationTargetImpl(
            firDiagnostic.a,
            firDiagnostic as KtPsiDiagnostic,
            token,
        )
    }
    add(FirErrors.WRONG_ANNOTATION_TARGET_WITH_USE_SITE_TARGET) { firDiagnostic ->
        WrongAnnotationTargetWithUseSiteTargetImpl(

        Artifact artifact = (Artifact) artifactMap.get( key );

        assertNotNull( artifact, "dependency artifact not found in map." );
        assertEquals( Artifact.SCOPE_COMPILE, artifact.getScope(), "dependency artifact has wrong scope." );

        //check for back-propagation of default scope.
        assertEquals( Artifact.SCOPE_COMPILE, dep.getScope(), "default scope NOT back-propagated to dependency." );
        */
    }

    @Test

For any non-trivial change, we need to be able to answer these questions:

* Why is this change done? What's the use case?
* For user facing features, what will the API look like?
* What test cases should it have? What could go wrong?
* How will it roughly be implemented? We'll happily provide code pointers to save you time.

We may ask you to answer these questions directly in the GitHub issue or (for large changes) in a shared Google Doc.

                // because it wasn't deployed, or it was deployed in the wrong place.

                synchronized (result) {
                    result.addMissingArtifact(artifact);
                }
            } catch (ArtifactResolutionException e) {
                // This is really a wagon TransferFailedException so something went wrong after we successfully
                // retrieved the metadata.

            Errors.NO_CONSTRUCTOR,
            Errors.OVERLOAD_RESOLUTION_AMBIGUITY,
            Errors.NONE_APPLICABLE,
            Errors.CANNOT_COMPLETE_RESOLVE,
            Errors.UNRESOLVED_REFERENCE_WRONG_RECEIVER,
            Errors.CALLABLE_REFERENCE_RESOLUTION_AMBIGUITY,
            Errors.TYPE_PARAMETER_AS_REIFIED,
            Errors.DEFINITELY_NON_NULLABLE_AS_REIFIED,
            Errors.REIFIED_TYPE_FORBIDDEN_SUBSTITUTION,

            /*
             * This logic (using filesystem, against wanted independence from the user environment) exists only for the
             * sake of backward-compat with 2.x (MNG-5000). In general, it is wrong to
             * base URL inheritance on the module directory names as this information is unavailable for POMs in the
             * repository. In other words, modules where artifactId != moduleDirName will see different effective URLs

			// If PodIPs exists, it is preferred, otherwise fallback to PodIP.
			//
			// If we get to this point and have a pod that really and truly has no IP in either of those,
			// it's not routable at this point and something is wrong/we should discard this event.
			podIPs := util.GetPodIPsIfPresent(pod)
			if len(podIPs) == 0 {
				log.Warnf("pod %s does not appear to have any assigned IPs, not capturing", pod.Name)
				return nil
			}

                .findFirst()
                .orElse(null);
        assertNotNull(pluginExecution, "Wrong id for \"" + artifactId + "\"");

        String config = pluginExecution.getConfiguration().toString();
        assertTrue(
                config.contains(expectedConfig),
                "Wrong config for \"" + artifactId + "\": (" + config + ") does not contain :" + expectedConfig);
    }