/*
         * Apparently readRDataWireFormat can return 0 if resultCode != 0 in
         * which case this will look indefinitely. Putting this else clause around
         * the loop might fix that. But I would need to see a capture to confirm.
         * if (resultCode != 0) {
         * srcIndex += rDataLength;
         * } else {
         */

            }
            buffer.append(proxy.getHost()).append(':').append(proxy.getPort()).append('>');
        }

        // consider the username&password because a repo manager might block artifacts depending on authorization
        Authentication auth = repository.getAuthentication();
        if (auth != null) {
            int hash = (auth.getUsername() + auth.getPassword()).hashCode();

        end = srcIndex + rDataLength;
        /* Apparently readRDataWireFormat can return 0 if resultCode != 0 in
        which case this will look indefinitely. Putting this else clause around
        the loop might fix that. But I would need to see a capture to confirm.
        if (resultCode != 0) {
            srcIndex += rDataLength;
        } else {
        */
        for (addrIndex = 0; srcIndex < end; addrIndex++) {

             * array. Incedentally when these andx smbs are created they are not
             * necessarily populated with header data because they're not writing
             * the header, only their body. But for whatever reason one might wish
             * to populate fields if the writeXxx operation needs this header data
             * for whatever reason. I copy over the uid here so it appears correct

```Python
UserInDB(
    username="john",
    password="secret",
    email="******@****.***",
    full_name=None,
)
```

Or more exactly, using `user_dict` directly, with whatever contents it might have in the future:

```Python
UserInDB(
    username = user_dict["username"],
    password = user_dict["password"],
    email = user_dict["email"],
    full_name = user_dict["full_name"],
)
```

```
{
  "Version": "2012-10-17",
  "Statement": [
	{

            want to analyze the set of transitive dependencies, in particular during early lifecycle phases where
            full dependency resolution might fail due to projects which haven't been built yet.
          </description>
        </field>
        <field>
          <name>dependencyCollection</name>
          <version>2.0.0+</version>

            "five", 5,
            "six", 6,
            "seven", 7,
            "eight", 8),
        "one",
        1,
        "two",
        2,
        "three",
        3,
        "four",
        4,
        "five",
        5,
        "six",
        6,
        "seven",
        7,
        "eight",
        8);
    assertMapEquals(
        ImmutableMap.of(
            "one", 1,

        assertFalse(result);
        assertEquals(1, chain1.changePasswordCallCount);
        assertEquals(1, chain2.changePasswordCallCount);
        // allMatch may short-circuit, so chain3 might not be called
        assertTrue(chain3.changePasswordCallCount <= 1);
    }

    // Test delete with no chains
    public void test_delete_noChains() {
        User user = createTestUser("testuser");

    }

    public void test_XContentBuilderCallback_nullBuilder() {
        XContentBuilderCallback callback = (builder, params) -> {
            // Test behavior when builder operations might fail
            if (builder == null) {
                throw new IOException("Builder is null");
            }
            builder.startObject();
            builder.field("null_test", "value");