*
 * <p>Advantages compared to {@code int[]}:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>All the many well-known advantages of immutability (read <i>Effective Java</i>, third
 *       edition, Item 17).
 *   <li>Has the value-based (not identity-based) {@link #equals}, {@link #hashCode}, and {@link
 *       #toString} behavior you expect.
 *   <li>Offers useful operations beyond just {@code get} and {@code length}, so you don't have to

   * name, even if their bounds differ.
   *
   * <p>While resolving a type variable from a {@code var -> type} map, we don't care whether the
   * type variable's bound has been partially resolved. As long as the type variable "identity"
   * matches.
   *
   * <p>On the other hand, if for example we are resolving {@code List<A extends B>} to {@code
   * List<A extends String>}, we need to compare that {@code <A extends B>} is unequal to {@code <A

}

// testPathTraversal exploit test, exploits path traversal on windows
// with following object names "\\../.minio.sys/config/iam/${username}/identity.json"
// #16852
func testPathTraversalExploit(obj ObjectLayer, instanceType, bucketName string, apiRouter http.Handler,
	credentials auth.Credentials, t *testing.T,
) {

   *
   * <p>The intersection exists if and only if the two ranges are {@linkplain #isConnected
   * connected}.
   *
   * <p>The intersection operation is commutative, associative and idempotent, and its identity
   * element is {@link Range#all}).
   *
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code isConnected(connectedRange)} is {@code false}
   */
  public Range<C> intersection(Range<C> connectedRange) {

 *
 * <p>Advantages compared to {@code double[]}:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>All the many well-known advantages of immutability (read <i>Effective Java</i>, third
 *       edition, Item 17).
 *   <li>Has the value-based (not identity-based) {@link #equals}, {@link #hashCode}, and {@link
 *       #toString} behavior you expect.
 *   <li>Offers useful operations beyond just {@code get} and {@code length}, so you don't have to

   * example, {@code [] < [1] < [1, 2] < [2]}.
   *
   * <p>The returned comparator is inconsistent with {@link Object#equals(Object)} (since arrays
   * support only identity equality), but it is consistent with {@link Arrays#equals(int[], int[])}.
   *
   * @since 2.0
   */
  public static Comparator<int[]> lexicographicalComparator() {
    return LexicographicalComparator.INSTANCE;

   * array as the lesser. For example, {@code [] < ['a'] < ['a', 'b'] < ['b']}.
   *
   * <p>The returned comparator is inconsistent with {@link Object#equals(Object)} (since arrays
   * support only identity equality), but it is consistent with {@link Arrays#equals(char[],
   * char[])}.
   *
   * @since 2.0
   */
  public static Comparator<char[]> lexicographicalComparator() {

   * ValueGraph#hasEdgeConnecting(EndpointPair)}.
   *
   * @since 27.1
   */
  boolean hasEdgeConnecting(EndpointPair<N> endpoints);

  //
  // Network identity
  //

  /**
   * Returns {@code true} iff {@code object} is a {@link Network} that has the same elements and the
   * same structural relationships as those in this network.
   *

   * lesser. For example, {@code [] < [1.0f] < [1.0f, 2.0f] < [2.0f]}.
   *
   * <p>The returned comparator is inconsistent with {@link Object#equals(Object)} (since arrays
   * support only identity equality), but it is consistent with {@link Arrays#equals(float[],
   * float[])}.
   *
   * @since 2.0
   */
  public static Comparator<float[]> lexicographicalComparator() {

   * lesser. For example, {@code [] < [1.0] < [1.0, 2.0] < [2.0]}.
   *
   * <p>The returned comparator is inconsistent with {@link Object#equals(Object)} (since arrays
   * support only identity equality), but it is consistent with {@link Arrays#equals(double[],
   * double[])}.
   *
   * @since 2.0
   */
  public static Comparator<double[]> lexicographicalComparator() {