* 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
 * IteratorTester#newTargetIterator()} method. This is because it's impossible to test an Iterator

    "EEE dd-MMM-yyyy HH-mm-ss z",
    "EEE dd-MMM-yy HH:mm:ss z",
    "EEE dd MMM yy HH:mm:ss z",
    "EEE,dd-MMM-yy HH:mm:ss z",
    "EEE,dd-MMM-yyyy HH:mm:ss z",
    "EEE, dd-MM-yyyy HH:mm:ss z",
    // RI bug 6641315 claims a cookie of this format was once served by www.yahoo.com:
    "EEE MMM d yyyy HH:mm:ss z",
  )

private val BROWSER_COMPATIBLE_DATE_FORMATS =

    val inflater = MessageInflater(false)
    val message = "f248cdc9c957c8cc4bcb492cc9cccf530400".decodeHex()
    assertThat(inflater.inflate(message)).isEqualTo("Hello inflation!".encodeUtf8())
  }

  /**
   * We had a bug where self-finishing inflater streams would infinite loop!
   * https://github.com/square/okhttp/issues/8078
   */
  @Test fun `inflate returns finished before bytesRead reaches input length`() {

    }
    return dummy;
  }

  /**
   * Similar to the above, but keeps a boolean flag rather than checking for the string accumulated
   * so far being empty. As a result, it does not have the above-mentioned bug.
   */
  @Benchmark
  int booleanIfFirst(int reps) {
    int dummy = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
      StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
      boolean append = false;

 * 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
 * IteratorTester#newTargetIterator()} method. This is because it's impossible to test an Iterator

          if (nanoTime >= waitUntil) return@withLock null
          val editCountBefore = editCount
          yieldUntil { nanoTime >= waitUntil || editCount > editCountBefore }
        }
        // TODO report compiler bug
        TODO("Can't get here")
      }
    }

    override fun put(element: T) {
      taskRunner.withLock {
        delegate.put(element)
        editCount++
      }
    }

   * thread. That is, all subscribers to a single event A will be called before any subscribers to
   * any events B and C that are posted to the event bus by the subscribers to A.
   */
  static Dispatcher perThreadDispatchQueue() {
    return new PerThreadQueuedDispatcher();
  }

  /**

    // This is somewhat annoying, but turns out to be very fast in practice. Alternatively, we could
    // drop the contract on the method that enforces this queue like behavior since depending on it
    // is likely to be a bug anyway.

    // N.B. All writes to the list and the next pointers must have happened before the above
    // synchronized block, so we can iterate the list without the lock held here.

  public void testEqualsIgnoreCaseUnicodeEquivalence() {
    // Note that it's possible in future that the JDK's idea to toUpperCase() or equalsIgnoreCase()
    // may change and break assumptions in this test [*]. This is not a bug in the implementation of
    // Ascii.equalsIgnoreCase(), but it is a signal that its documentation may need updating as
    // regards edge cases.

  public void testEqualsIgnoreCaseUnicodeEquivalence() {
    // Note that it's possible in future that the JDK's idea to toUpperCase() or equalsIgnoreCase()
    // may change and break assumptions in this test [*]. This is not a bug in the implementation of
    // Ascii.equalsIgnoreCase(), but it is a signal that its documentation may need updating as
    // regards edge cases.