}
        });
  }

  @Override
  protected void tearDown() {
    tearDownStack.runTearDown();
  }

  /**
   * This first test doesn't test anything in Uninterruptibles, just demonstrates some normal
   * behavior of futures so that you can contrast the next test with it.
   */
  public void testRegularFutureInterrupted() throws ExecutionException {

    /*
     * Here's the order of events that we want.

    /*
     * No mutable Table exactly matches the insertion order behavior of ImmutableTable.Builder, but
     * the Builder can't efficiently support merging of duplicate values.  Getting around this
     * requires some work.
     */

    return Collector.of(
        ImmutableTableCollectorState<R, C, V>::new,
        (state, input) ->
            state.put(
                rowFunction.apply(input),

    }
  }

  private static boolean equal(@Nullable Object a, @Nullable Object b) {
    return a == b || (a != null && a.equals(b));
  }

  // This one-liner saves us from some ugly casts
  protected Entry<K, V> entry(K key, V value) {
    return Helpers.mapEntry(key, value);
  }

  @Override
  protected void expectContents(Collection<Entry<K, V>> expected) {

 *       allocating garbage).
 * </ul>
 *
 * <p>Disadvantages compared to {@code int[]}:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>Memory footprint has a fixed overhead (about 24 bytes per instance).
 *   <li><i>Some</i> construction use cases force the data to be copied (though several construction
 *       APIs are offered that don't).
 *   <li>Can't be passed directly to methods that expect {@code int[]} (though the most common

 * <p>{@code RateLimiter} is safe for concurrent use: It will restrict the total rate of calls from
 * all threads. Note, however, that it does not guarantee fairness.
 *
 * <p>Rate limiters are often used to restrict the rate at which some physical or logical resource
 * is accessed. This is in contrast to {@link java.util.concurrent.Semaphore} which restricts the
 * number of concurrent accesses instead of the rate (note though that concurrency and rate are

   * the {@link Multimap} class documentation for clarification.
   */
  int size();

  /**
   * Returns {@code true} if this multimap contains no key-value pairs. Equivalent to {@code size()
   * == 0}, but can in some cases be more efficient.
   */
  boolean isEmpty();

  /**
   * Returns {@code true} if this multimap contains at least one key-value pair with the key {@code
   * key}.
   */

      Iterable<? extends E> elements) {
    Comparable<?>[] array = Iterables.toArray(elements, new Comparable<?>[0]);
    checkElementsNotNull((Object[]) array);
    Arrays.sort(array);
    return asImmutableList(array);
  }

  /**
   * Returns an immutable list containing the given elements, in sorted order relative to the

  /**
   * Returns {@code true} if {@code bytes} is a <i>well-formed</i> UTF-8 byte sequence according to
   * Unicode 6.0. Note that this is a stronger criterion than simply whether the bytes can be
   * decoded. For example, some versions of the JDK decoder will accept "non-shortest form" byte
   * sequences, but encoding never reproduces these. Such byte sequences are <i>not</i> considered
   * well-formed.
   *

 * amortized) constant time operations. Expected in the hashtable sense (depends on the hash
 * function doing a good job of distributing the elements to the buckets to a distribution not far
 * from uniform), and amortized since some operations can trigger a hash table resize.
 *
 * <p>As compared with {@link java.util.LinkedHashMap}, this structure places significantly reduced
 * load on the garbage collector by only using a constant number of internal objects.

            keys[i] = key;
            values[i] = value;
          }
        } else {
          // Need to sort and check for nulls and dupes.
          // Inline the Comparator implementation rather than transforming with a Function
          // to save code size.
          Arrays.sort(
              entryArray,
              0,
              size,
              (e1, e2) -> {