* calling code written in Kotlin).) Typically, we want to let a {@link Throwable} from such a
   * method propagate untouched, just as we'd typically let it do for a non-reflective call.
   * However, we can't usually write {@code throw t;} when {@code t} has a static type of {@link
   * Throwable}. But we <i>can</i> write {@code sneakyThrow(t);}.
   *

   * calling code written in Kotlin).) Typically, we want to let a {@link Throwable} from such a
   * method propagate untouched, just as we'd typically let it do for a non-reflective call.
   * However, we can't usually write {@code throw t;} when {@code t} has a static type of {@link
   * Throwable}. But we <i>can</i> write {@code sneakyThrow(t);}.
   *

 *   <li>hasNext()
 *   <li>hasNext();
 *   <li>remove();
 *   <li>next();
 * </ol>
 *
 * <p>This particular order of operations may be unrealistic, and testing all 3^5 of them may be
 * thought of as overkill; however, it's difficult to determine which proper subset of this massive
 * set would be sufficient to expose any possible bug. Brute force is simpler.
 *
 * <p>To use this class the concrete subclass must implement the {@link

   * identical inputs: This sounds like it ought to be a problem here, since the goals of this class
   * include testing that {@code equals()} is reflexive and is tolerant of {@code null}. However,
   * there's no problem. The reason: {@link EqualsTester} tests {@code null} and identical inputs
   * directly against {@code equals()} rather than through the {@code Equivalence}.
   */

   *
   * <p>Historically, {@code Function} instances in this library have implemented this method to
   * recognize certain cases where distinct {@code Function} instances would in fact behave
   * identically. However, as code migrates to {@code java.util.function}, that behavior will
   * disappear. It is best not to depend on it.
   */
  @Override
  boolean equals(@Nullable Object obj);

   * calling code written in Kotlin).) Typically, we want to let a {@link Throwable} from such a
   * method propagate untouched, just as we'd typically let it do for a non-reflective call.
   * However, we can't usually write {@code throw t;} when {@code t} has a static type of {@link
   * Throwable}. But we <i>can</i> write {@code sneakyThrow(t);}.
   *

   * calling code written in Kotlin).) Typically, we want to let a {@link Throwable} from such a
   * method propagate untouched, just as we'd typically let it do for a non-reflective call.
   * However, we can't usually write {@code throw t;} when {@code t} has a static type of {@link
   * Throwable}. But we <i>can</i> write {@code sneakyThrow(t);}.
   *

Existem alguns cenários onde você deseje sobrepor uma dependência durante os testes.

Você não quer que a dependência original execute (e nenhuma das subdependências que você possa ter).

Em vez disso, você deseja fornecer uma dependência diferente que será usada somente durante os testes (possivelmente apenas para alguns testes específicos) e fornecerá um valor que pode ser usado onde o valor da dependência original foi usado.

 * {@code asMap} has a few subtleties. As long as the set of keys remains unchanged, adding or
 * removing mappings does not affect the key iteration order. However, if you remove all values
 * associated with a key and then add the key back to the multimap, that key will come last in the
 * key iteration order.
 *

   */
  public PatternFilenameFilter(Pattern pattern) {
    this.pattern = Preconditions.checkNotNull(pattern);
  }

  /*
   * Our implementation works fine with a null `dir`. However, there's nothing in the documentation
   * of the supertype that suggests that implementations are expected to tolerate null. That said, I
   * see calls in Google code that pass a null `dir` to a FilenameFilter.... So let's declare the