* <ul>
 *   <li>Preventing duplicate repositories that could cause confusion</li>
 *   <li>Rejecting null repository entries that would cause failures</li>
 *   <li>Maintaining consistent repository ordering for reproducible builds</li>
 * </ul>
 *
 * @since 4.0.0
 * @see RemoteRepository
 * @see Session#getRemoteRepositories()
 */
@Experimental
@Immutable

        assertTrue(result.contains(expectedHashCode));
    }

    // Test toString() format consistency
    @Test
    public void test_toString_formatConsistency() {
        // Create multiple instances and verify consistent format
        FessUserTimeZoneProcessProvider provider1 = new FessUserTimeZoneProcessProvider();
        FessUserTimeZoneProcessProvider provider2 = new FessUserTimeZoneProcessProvider();

 * it easy to get sample values to use in such tests.
 *
 * This class is pretty fast and loose with default values: it attempts to provide values that are
 * well-formed, but doesn't guarantee values are internally consistent. Callers must take care to
 * configure the factory when sample values impact the correctness of the test.
 */
class TestValueFactory : Closeable {
  var taskFaker: TaskFaker = TaskFaker()

  /**
   * Returns an immutable map containing the same entries as {@code map}. If {@code map} somehow
   * contains entries with duplicate keys (for example, if it is a {@code SortedMap} whose
   * comparator is not <i>consistent with equals</i>), the results of this method are undefined.
   *
   * <p><b>Note:</b> Despite what the method name suggests, if {@code map} is an {@code
   * ImmutableClassToInstanceMap}, no copy will actually be performed.

    <!-- Checks that the order of modifiers conforms to the suggestions in the
    Java Language specification, sections 8.1.1, 8.3.1 and 8.4.3. It is not that
    the standard is perfect, but having a consistent order makes the code more
    readable and no other order is compellingly better than the standard.
    The correct order is:
            public
            protected
            private
            abstract

   *       traffic to {@code charlie}, rather than letting {@code bravo} keep its traffic.
   * </ul>
   *
   * <p>See the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_hashing">Wikipedia article on
   * consistent hashing</a> for more information.
   */
  public static int consistentHash(HashCode hashCode, int buckets) {
    return consistentHash(hashCode.padToLong(), buckets);
  }

  /**

		wantOk       bool
	}{
		{
			name:         "consistent",
			m:            metaCacheEntries{inputSerialized[0], inputSerialized[0], inputSerialized[0], inputSerialized[0]},
			r:            metadataResolutionParams{dirQuorum: 4, objQuorum: 4, strict: false},
			wantSelected: &inputSerialized[0],
			wantOk:       true,
		},
		{
			name:         "consistent-strict",

   *     IOException}.
   */
  /*
   * The proper capitalization would be "swallowIoException." However:
   *
   * - It might be preferable to be consistent with the JDK precedent (which they stuck with even
   *   for "UncheckedIOException").
   *
   * - If we change the name, some of our callers break because our Android Lint ParameterName check

 *
 * <p>Each of the {@code standard} methods, where appropriate, uses the set's comparator (or the
 * natural ordering of the elements, if there is no comparator) to test element equality. As a
 * result, if the comparator is not consistent with equals, some of the standard implementations may
 * violate the {@code Set} contract.
 *
 * <p>The {@code standard} methods and the collection views they return are not guaranteed to be

import javax.net.ssl.SSLException
import javax.net.ssl.SSLSession
import okhttp3.internal.canParseAsIpAddress
import okhttp3.internal.toCanonicalHost
import okio.utf8Size

/**
 * A HostnameVerifier consistent with [RFC 2818][rfc_2818].
 *
 * [rfc_2818]: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2818.txt
 */
@Suppress("NAME_SHADOWING")
object OkHostnameVerifier : HostnameVerifier {
  private const val ALT_DNS_NAME = 2