// They aren't equal...
    assertFalse(hashCodeA.equals(hashCodeB));

    // But they still have the same Object#hashCode() value.
    // Technically not a violation of the equals/hashCode contract, but...?
    assertEquals(hashCodeA.hashCode(), hashCodeB.hashCode());
  }

  public void testRoundTripHashCodeUsingFromString() {
    HashCode hash1 = sha1().hashString("foo", US_ASCII);

 * 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
 * thread-safe, even when all of the methods that they depend on are thread-safe.
 *
 * @author Louis Wasserman

  }

  // TODO(chrisn): Consider trying to encode/flush directly to the argument byte
  // buffer when possible.
  @Override
  public int read(byte[] b, int off, int len) throws IOException {
    // Obey InputStream contract.
    checkPositionIndexes(off, off + len, b.length);
    if (len == 0) {
      return 0;
    }

    // The rest of this method implements the process described by the CharsetEncoder javadoc.

        }, "EmptyIterator should work correctly in nested iteration");
    }

    @Test
    @DisplayName("EmptyIterator should follow Iterator contract for empty collections")
    void testIteratorContract() {
        // Given - typical Iterator usage pattern

        // When & Then - verify empty collection behavior

/**
 * Unit tests for {@link SmbComTransactionResponse}.
 *
 * <p>The class is abstract, so a concrete stub implementation is
 * provided purely to expose protected state and to satisfy the abstract
 * method contract.  The tests focus on public API behaviour and the
 * parsing logic in {@code readParameterWordsWireFormat} and
 * {@code readBytesWireFormat}.
 */
public class SmbComTransactionResponseTest {

      boolean result = sync.setException(checkNotNull(throwable));
      if (result) {
        executionList.execute();
      }
      return result;
    }

    /**
     * Following the contract of {@link AbstractQueuedSynchronizer} we create a private subclass to
     * hold the synchronizer. This synchronizer is used to implement the blocking and waiting calls

            // Simple test implementation - not used in these tests
            return 0;
        }
    }

    @Nested
    @DisplayName("Interface Contract Tests")
    class InterfaceContractTests {

        @Test
        @DisplayName("Should implement FileSystemInformation interface")
        void shouldImplementFileSystemInformation() {

      boolean result = sync.setException(checkNotNull(throwable));
      if (result) {
        executionList.execute();
      }
      return result;
    }

    /**
     * Following the contract of {@link AbstractQueuedSynchronizer} we create a private subclass to
     * hold the synchronizer. This synchronizer is used to implement the blocking and waiting calls

Symmetrically, the same problem exists on the side of Gradle maintainers.
It should be clear when introducing a property what contract users can expect and what we can afford to provide.
As features progress through the lifecycle of stabilization and, possibly later, deprecation, the corresponding properties can also adjust accordingly.

                    corresponding JSON. But if the data in the object returned is not
                    valid, that would mean a violation of the contract with the client,
                    so it's an error from the API developer. So, FastAPI will raise an
                    error and return a 500 error code (Internal Server Error).