suite.addTestSuite(ImmutableClassToInstanceMapTest.class);

    suite.addTest(
        MapTestSuiteBuilder.using(
                new TestClassToInstanceMapGenerator() {
                  // Other tests will verify what real, warning-free usage looks like
                  // but here we have to do some serious fudging
                  @Override
                  @SuppressWarnings({"unchecked", "rawtypes"})

   *
   * <p>Note that if the given output stream was not empty or is modified after the {@code
   * ByteArrayDataOutput} is created, the contract for {@link ByteArrayDataOutput#toByteArray} will
   * not be honored (the bytes returned in the byte array may not be exactly what was written via
   * calls to {@code ByteArrayDataOutput}).
   *
   * @since 17.0
   */

  /**
   * Creates a new key that is not expected to be found in {@link #makePopulatedMap()}.
   *
   * @return a key.
   * @throws UnsupportedOperationException if it's not possible to make a key that will not be found
   *     in the map.
   */
  protected abstract K getKeyNotInPopulatedMap() throws UnsupportedOperationException;

  /**
   * Creates a new value that is not expected to be found in {@link #makePopulatedMap()}.

   * defer that to Range, since it's ContiguousSet.create() that's used to create the sets. However,
   * that gets messy here, and we already have null tests for Range.
   */

  /*
   * These generators also rely on consecutive integer inputs (not necessarily in order, but no
   * holes).
   */

  // SetCreationTester has some tests that pass in duplicates. Dedup them.

  // could find them in the code review archives), but here are a few:
  //
  // 1. What about leaving/unlocking? Are you going to do
  //    guard.enter() paired with monitor.leave()? That might get
  //    confusing. It's nice for the finally block to look as close as
  //    possible to the thing right before the try. You could have
  //    guard.leave(), but that's a little odd as well because the

   *
   * <p><b>Note:</b> Despite what the method name suggests, if {@code elements} is an {@code
   * ImmutableSortedSet}, it may be returned instead of a copy.
   *
   * <p>This method is not type-safe, as it may be called on elements that are not mutually
   * comparable.
   *
   * <p>This method is safe to use even when {@code elements} is a synchronized or concurrent
   * collection that is currently being modified by another thread.

    // call get() twice to make sure that memoization doesn't interfere
    // with throwing the exception
    for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
      try {
        memoizedSupplier.get();
        fail("failed to throw NullPointerException");
      } catch (NullPointerException e) {
        // this is what should happen
      }
    }
  }

  @J2ktIncompatible

    // call get() twice to make sure that memoization doesn't interfere
    // with throwing the exception
    for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
      try {
        memoizedSupplier.get();
        fail("failed to throw NullPointerException");
      } catch (NullPointerException e) {
        // this is what should happen
      }
    }
  }

  @J2ktIncompatible

   * that use {@code comparator} to determine the least and greatest elements.
   */
  /*
   * TODO(cpovirk): Change to Comparator<? super B> to permit Comparator<@Nullable ...> and
   * Comparator<SupertypeOfB>? What we have here matches the immutable collections, but those also
   * expose a public Builder constructor that accepts "? super." So maybe we should do *that*
   * instead.
   */

  }

  @J2ktIncompatible
  @GwtIncompatible // NullPointerTester
  public void testNullPointers() {
    /*
     * Don't bother testing: Preconditions defines a bunch of methods that accept a template (or
     * even entire message) that simultaneously:
     *
     * - _shouldn't_ be null, so we don't annotate it with @Nullable
     *
     * - _can_ be null without causing a runtime failure (because we don't want the interesting