}

  @Test
  @Throws(Exception::class)
  fun completeBuilder() {
    val cacheControl =
      CacheControl.Builder()
        .noCache()
        .noStore()
        .maxAge(1.seconds)
        .maxStale(2.seconds)
        .minFresh(3.seconds)
        .onlyIfCached()
        .noTransform()
        .immutable()
        .build()
    assertThat(cacheControl.toString()).isEqualTo(

import static java.util.concurrent.Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor;
import static java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS;
import static java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS;
import static java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit.SECONDS;

import com.google.common.annotations.GwtCompatible;
import com.google.common.annotations.GwtIncompatible;
import com.google.common.annotations.J2ktIncompatible;
import com.google.common.base.Function;

    future.set(RESULT);
    /*
     * getUninterruptibly should call the timed get method once with a
     * wait of 0 seconds (and it should succeed, since the result is already
     * available).
     */
    assertEquals(RESULT, getUninterruptibly(future, 0, SECONDS));
  }

  public void testMakeUninterruptible_timedGetNegativeTimeoutAttempted()
      throws TimeoutException, ExecutionException {

Then, for the request in the next tab, your app will wait for one second less, and so on.

This means that it will end up finishing some of the last tabs' requests earlier than some of the previous ones.

func TestDynamicTimeoutDualDecrease(t *testing.T) {
	timeout := newDynamicTimeout(time.Minute, time.Second)

	initial := timeout.Timeout()

	for i := 0; i < dynamicTimeoutLogSize; i++ {
		timeout.LogSuccess(20 * time.Second)
	}

	adjusted := timeout.Timeout()

	for i := 0; i < dynamicTimeoutLogSize; i++ {
		timeout.LogSuccess(20 * time.Second)
	}

	adjustedAgain := timeout.Timeout()

  @Test
  fun timeoutCall() {
    runTest {
      server.enqueue(
        MockResponse.Builder()
          .bodyDelay(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
          .body("abc")
          .build(),
      )

      val call = client.newCall(request)

      try {
        withTimeout(1.seconds) {
          call.executeAsync().use {
            withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
              it.body.string()
            }

	lrwm := NewLRWMutex()

	if !lrwm.GetRLock(ctx, "", "object1", time.Second) {
		panic("Failed to acquire read lock")
	}
	// fmt.Println("1st read lock acquired, waiting...")

	if !lrwm.GetRLock(ctx, "", "object1", time.Second) {
		panic("Failed to acquire read lock")
	}
	// fmt.Println("2nd read lock acquired, waiting...")

	go func() {
		time.Sleep(2 * time.Second)
		lrwm.RUnlock()

 * the License.
 */

package com.google.common.util.concurrent.testing;

import static com.google.common.util.concurrent.MoreExecutors.directExecutor;
import static java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit.SECONDS;

import com.google.common.annotations.GwtIncompatible;
import com.google.common.util.concurrent.ListenableFuture;
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;

    // causing the thread to be suspended for 3.5 seconds, and then park itself for 2 seconds after
    // being resumed. To avoid a flake in this scenario, calculate how long that thread actually
    // waited and assert based on that time. Empirically, the race where the thread ends up waiting
    // for 5.5 seconds happens about 2% of the time.

	if e != nil {
		return psv, ErrMalformedExpires
	}

	if preSignV4Values.Expires < 0 {
		return psv, ErrNegativeExpires
	}

	// Check if Expiry time is less than 7 days (value in seconds).
	if preSignV4Values.Expires.Seconds() > 604800 {
		return psv, ErrMaximumExpires
	}

	if preSignV4Values.Date.IsZero() || preSignV4Values.Date.Equal(timeSentinel) {
		return psv, ErrMalformedPresignedDate
	}