}
        });
  }

  private long doMultithreadedLoop(Callable<Long> task)
      throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {

    List<Future<Long>> futures = Lists.newArrayListWithCapacity(threads);
    for (int i = 0; i < threads; i++) {
      futures.add(threadPool.submit(task));
    }
    long total = 0;
    for (Future<Long> future : futures) {
      total += future.get();
    }

  }

  /** Tests that the {@link Future#get(long, TimeUnit)} method times out correctly. */
  public void testTimeoutOnGetWorksCorrectly() throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {

    // The task thread waits for the latch, so we expect a timeout here.
    try {
      future.get(20, MILLISECONDS);
      fail("Should have timed out trying to get the value.");
    } catch (TimeoutException expected) {
    } finally {

    final CyclicBarrier firstBarrier = new CyclicBarrier(2);
    final CyclicBarrier secondBarrier = new CyclicBarrier(2);
    final AtomicBoolean shouldWait = new AtomicBoolean(true);
    Runnable task =
        new Runnable() {
          @Override
          public void run() {
            try {
              if (shouldWait.get()) {
                firstBarrier.await();
                secondBarrier.await();

          public void run() {
            runChosenTest();
          }
        };
    final FutureTask<@Nullable Void> task = new FutureTask<>(runChosenTest, null);
    startThread(
        new Runnable() {
          @Override
          public void run() {
            task.run();
          }
        });
    awaitUninterruptibly(doingCallLatch);
    long hangDelayMillis =

   * wait for 100 seconds, and /then/ start the actual task. Why wait without doing anything? A much
   * better approach is to /allow/ the request right away (as if it was an acquire(1) request
   * instead), and postpone /subsequent/ requests as needed. In this version, we allow starting the
   * task immediately, and postpone by 100 seconds future requests, thus we allow for work to get

import javax.annotation.CheckForNull;

/**
 * {@link Error} variant of {@link java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException}. As with {@code
 * ExecutionException}, the error's {@linkplain #getCause() cause} comes from a failed task,
 * possibly run in another thread. That cause should itself be an {@code Error}; if not, use {@code
 * ExecutionException} or {@link UncheckedExecutionException}. This allows the client code to

    public <T> Future<T> submit(Callable<T> task) {
      lastMethodCalled = "submit";
      assertThat(task).isInstanceOf(WrappedCallable.class);
      return inline.submit(task);
    }

    @Override
    public Future<?> submit(Runnable task) {
      lastMethodCalled = "submit";
      assertThat(task).isInstanceOf(WrappedRunnable.class);
      return inline.submit(task);
    }

    @Override

            directExecutor());

    // Wait for the first task to be started in the background. It will block until we explicitly
    // stop it.
    blockingCallable.waitForStart();

    // Give the second task a chance to (incorrectly) start up while the first task is running.
    assertThat(future2.isDone()).isFalse();

    // Stop the first task. The second task should then run.
    blockingCallable.stop();

            directExecutor());

    // Wait for the first task to be started in the background. It will block until we explicitly
    // stop it.
    blockingCallable.waitForStart();

    // Give the second task a chance to (incorrectly) start up while the first task is running.
    assertThat(future2.isDone()).isFalse();

    // Stop the first task. The second task should then run.
    blockingCallable.stop();

  }

  /** Tests that the {@link Future#get(long, TimeUnit)} method times out correctly. */
  public void testTimeoutOnGetWorksCorrectly() throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {

    // The task thread waits for the latch, so we expect a timeout here.
    try {
      future.get(20, MILLISECONDS);
      fail("Should have timed out trying to get the value.");
    } catch (TimeoutException expected) {
    } finally {