*       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

     *
     * @param cl
     *            the class loader
     * @param other
     *            the class loader to check as ancestor
     * @return <code>true</code> if <code>other</code> is an ancestor of <code>cl</code>
     */
    protected static boolean isAncestor(final ClassLoader cl, final ClassLoader other) {

        idx += 4;
        SMBUtil.writeInt4(maxReceiveSize, data, idx);
        idx += 4;
        SMBUtil.writeInt4(maxFragmentedSize, data, idx);

        return data;
    }

    /**
     * Check if negotiation was successful
     *
     * @return true if successful
     */
    public boolean isSuccess() {
        return status == STATUS_SUCCESS;
    }

    // Getters and setters

    /**

`current_user`의 타입을 Pydantic 모델 `User`로 선언한다는 점에 주목하세요.

이는 함수 내부에서 자동 완성과 타입 체크에 도움을 줍니다.

/// tip | 팁

요청 본문도 Pydantic 모델로 선언된다는 것을 기억하실지도 모릅니다.

여기서 **FastAPI**는 `Depends`를 사용하고 있기 때문에 혼동하지 않습니다.

///

/// check | 확인

이 의존성 시스템이 설계된 방식은 모두 `User` 모델을 반환하는 서로 다른 의존성(서로 다른 "dependables")을 가질 수 있도록 합니다.

해당 타입의 데이터를 반환할 수 있는 의존성이 하나만 있어야 하는 것으로 제한되지 않습니다.

///

## 다른 모델 { #other-models }

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},