assertEquals(Integer.valueOf(VALUE_PREFIX + i), cache.getUnchecked(KEY_PREFIX + i));
      assertTrue("Creator should have been called @#" + i, loader.wasCalled());
    }

    // expire new values we just created
    CacheTesting.expireEntries((LoadingCache<?, ?>) cache, EXPIRING_TIME, ticker);
    assertEquals("Eviction notifications must be received", 21, removalListener.getCount());

        it just seem like a sensible behavior for the feature to have?


        Before we make significant changes to existing features in Guava, we really want to be sure
        that it's for a use case that actually comes up in the real world. We want to hear the
        real-world use case so the community can discuss and debate whether this feature is actually

          // In the case of a concurrent remove, we might observe a zero value, which means another
          // thread is about to remove (element, existingCounter) from the map. Rather than wait,
          // we can just do that work here.
          AtomicInteger newCounter = new AtomicInteger(occurrences);
          if ((countMap.putIfAbsent(element, newCounter) == null)
              || countMap.replace(element, existingCounter, newCounter)) {

      return this;
    }

    // First add just enough to fill buffer size, and munch that
    int bytesToCopy = bufferSize - buffer.position();
    for (int i = 0; i < bytesToCopy; i++) {
      buffer.put(readBuffer.get());
    }
    munch(); // buffer becomes empty here, since chunkSize divides bufferSize

    // Now process directly from the rest of the input buffer
    while (readBuffer.remaining() >= chunkSize) {

  /**
   * Test that the function is invoked only once, even if it throws an exception. Also, test that
   * that function's result is wrapped in an ExecutionException.
   */
  @J2ktIncompatible
  @GwtIncompatible // reflection
  public void testTransformExceptionRemainsMemoized() throws Throwable {
    // We need to test with two input futures since ExecutionList.execute

  }

  /**
   * This test creates a long random sequence of inputs, then a lot of differently configured sinks
   * process it; all should produce the same answer, the only difference should be the number of
   * process()/processRemaining() invocations, due to alignment.
   */
  @AndroidIncompatible // slow. TODO(cpovirk): Maybe just reduce iterations under Android.

import static org.junit.Assert.assertTrue;

import java.util.Set;
import org.junit.Test;

/**
 * Abstract base class for testing directed {@link Graph} implementations defined in this package.
 */
public abstract class AbstractStandardDirectedGraphTest extends AbstractGraphTest {

  @Override
  @Test
  public void nodes_checkReturnedSetMutability() {
    assume().that(graphIsMutable()).isTrue();

    putEdge(N1, N2);
    assertThat(incidentEdges).containsExactlyElementsIn(graph.incidentEdges(N1));
  }

  @Test
  public void predecessors_oneEdge() {
    putEdge(N1, N2);
    assertThat(graph.predecessors(N2)).containsExactly(N1);
    assertThat(graph.predecessors(N1)).containsExactly(N2);
  }

  @Test
  public void successors_oneEdge() {
    putEdge(N1, N2);
    assertThat(graph.successors(N1)).containsExactly(N2);

          .add((long) Integer.MIN_VALUE + i)
          .add((long) Integer.MAX_VALUE + i)
          .add((1L << 32) + i);
    }
    TEST_INTS = testIntsBuilder.build();
    TEST_LONGS = testLongsBuilder.build();
  }

  public void testFromIntBitsAndIntValueAreInverses() {
    for (int value : TEST_INTS) {
      assertWithMessage(UnsignedInts.toString(value))
          .that(UnsignedInteger.fromIntBits(value).intValue())

      dest[3] = '%';
      dest[6] = '%';
      dest[8] = UPPER_HEX_DIGITS[cp & 0xF];
      cp >>>= 4;
      dest[7] = UPPER_HEX_DIGITS[0x8 | (cp & 0x3)];
      cp >>>= 2;
      dest[5] = UPPER_HEX_DIGITS[cp & 0xF];
      cp >>>= 4;
      dest[4] = UPPER_HEX_DIGITS[0x8 | (cp & 0x3)];
      cp >>>= 2;
      dest[2] = UPPER_HEX_DIGITS[cp];
      return dest;
    } else if (cp <= 0x10ffff) {
      char[] dest = new char[12];