//   system scheduling and as such we could either miss our deadline, or unpark() could be delayed
  //   so that it looks like we timed out even though we didn't. For comparison FutureTask respects
  //   completion preferably and AQS is non-deterministic (depends on where in the queue the waiter

        throw sendRequestException
      }
      throw e
    }
  }

  private fun shouldIgnoreAndWaitForRealResponse(code: Int): Boolean =
    when {
      // Server sent a 100-continue even though we did not request one. Try again to read the
      // actual response status.
      code == 100 -> true

      // Handle Processing (102) & Early Hints (103) and any new codes without failing

      try {
        checkCurrentState(RUNNING);
      } finally {
        monitor.leave();
      }
    } else {
      // It is possible due to races that we are currently in the expected state even though we
      // timed out. e.g. if we weren't event able to grab the lock within the timeout we would never
      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead

    @Mock
    private SmbFileHandle smbFileHandle;

    @Mock
    private SmbTreeHandle smbTreeHandle;

    @BeforeEach
    void setUp() throws CIFSException {
        // Reset mock before each test if necessary, though MockitoExtension does this.
    }

    /**
     * Test that getTree() returns the correct SmbTreeHandle.
     */
    @Test
    void testGetTree() {
        when(smbFileHandle.getTree()).thenReturn(smbTreeHandle);

        .suppressing(suppressForLinkedBlockingQueue())
        .createTestSuite();
  }

  // Not specifying KNOWN_ORDER for PriorityQueue and PriorityBlockingQueue
  // even though they do have it, because our tests interpret KNOWN_ORDER to
  // also mean that the iterator returns the head element first, which those
  // don't.

  public Test testsForPriorityBlockingQueue() {

 *
 * <p>The {@link #get}, {@link #removeAll}, and {@link #replaceValues} methods each return a {@link
 * SortedSet} of values, while {@link Multimap#entries()} returns a {@link Set} of map entries.
 * Though the method signature doesn't say so explicitly, the map returned by {@link #asMap} has
 * {@code SortedSet} values.
 *
 * <p><b>Warning:</b> As in all {@link SetMultimap}s, do not modify either a key <i>or a value</i>

        .suppressing(suppressForLinkedBlockingQueue())
        .createTestSuite();
  }

  // Not specifying KNOWN_ORDER for PriorityQueue and PriorityBlockingQueue
  // even though they do have it, because our tests interpret KNOWN_ORDER to
  // also mean that the iterator returns the head element first, which those
  // don't.

  public Test testsForPriorityBlockingQueue() {

### Model for Output Response Data { #model-for-output-response-data }

If you interact with the docs and check the response, even though the code didn't add anything in one of the `description` fields, the JSON response contains the default value (`null`):

<div class="screenshot">
<img src="/img/tutorial/separate-openapi-schemas/image02.png">
</div>

        final int start = bufferIndex;

        pathConsumed = readInt2(buffer, bufferIndex);
        bufferIndex += 2;
        /* Samba 2.2.8a will reply with Unicode paths even though
         * ASCII is negotiated so we must use flags2 (probably
         * should anyway).
         */
        if ((flags2 & FLAGS2_UNICODE) != 0) {
            pathConsumed /= 2;
        }

   * {@code co.uk}, {@code google.invalid}, or {@code blogspot.com}.
   *
   * <p>This method can be used to determine whether it will probably be possible to set cookies on
   * the domain, though even that depends on individual browsers' implementations of cookie
   * controls. See <a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2109.txt">RFC 2109</a> for details.
   *
   * @since 6.0
   */