}

        response.body.closeQuietly()

        if (++followUpCount > MAX_FOLLOW_UPS) {
          call.eventListener.followUpDecision(call, response, null)
          throw ProtocolException("Too many follow-up requests: $followUpCount")
        }

        call.eventListener.followUpDecision(call, response, followUp)
        request = followUp
        priorResponse = response
      } finally {

          return;
        }
      } catch (SecurityException e) {
        logger.warning("Cannot access " + file + ": " + e);
        // TODO(emcmanus): consider whether to log other failure cases too.
        return;
      }
      if (file.isDirectory()) {
        scanDirectory(file, builder);
      } else {
        scanJar(file, scannedUris, builder);
      }
    }

    private void scanJar(

		1: {bucketName: "------", objName: "obj", inputData: []byte(""), expectedError: BucketNameInvalid{Bucket: "------"}},
		2: {
			bucketName: "$this-is-not-valid-too", objName: "obj", inputData: []byte(""),
			expectedError: BucketNameInvalid{Bucket: "$this-is-not-valid-too"},
		},
		3: {bucketName: "a", objName: "obj", inputData: []byte(""), expectedError: BucketNameInvalid{Bucket: "a"}},

		// Case with invalid object names.

   * connection is fine the ping will receive a pong; otherwise it won't.
   *
   * The deadline to respond to this ping attempts to limit the cost of being wrong. If it is too
   * long, streams created while we await the pong will reuse broken connections and inevitably
   * fail. If it is too short, slow connections will be marked as failed and extra TCP and TLS
   * handshakes will be required.
   *

   */
  /*
   * The new array contains nulls, even if the old array did not. If we wanted to be accurate, we
   * would declare a return type of `@Nullable T[]`. However, we've decided not to think too hard
   * about arrays for now, as they're a mess.
   */
  public static <T extends @Nullable Object> T[] newArray(T[] reference, int length) {
    T[] empty = reference.length == 0 ? reference : Arrays.copyOf(reference, 0);

        assertEquals(32, sid.sub_authority[0]);
        assertEquals(544, sid.sub_authority[1]);
        assertEquals(adminSidString, sid.toString());
    }

    /**
     * Test byte array constructor with too many sub-authorities.
     */
    @Test
    void testByteArrayConstructorTooManySubAuthorities() {
        byte[] badSid = new byte[10];
        badSid[1] = 101; // sub_authority_count > 100

  try {
    toLong()
  } catch (_: NumberFormatException) {
    defaultValue
  }

/**
 * Returns this as a non-negative integer, or 0 if it is negative, or [Int.MAX_VALUE] if it is too
 * large, or [defaultValue] if it cannot be parsed.
 */
internal fun String?.toNonNegativeInt(defaultValue: Int): Int {
  try {
    val value = this?.toLong() ?: return defaultValue
    return when {

          assertThat(b).isNotEqualTo(0);
        } catch (ArithmeticException e) {
          assertThat(b).isEqualTo(0);
        }
      }
    }
  }

  @GwtIncompatible // Too slow in GWT (~3min fully optimized)
  public void testDivideRemainderEuclideanProperty() {
    // Use a seed so that the test is deterministic:
    Random r = new Random(0L);
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {

   */
  /*
   * The new array contains nulls, even if the old array did not. If we wanted to be accurate, we
   * would declare a return type of `@Nullable T[]`. However, we've decided not to think too hard
   * about arrays for now, as they're a mess.
   */
  public static <T extends @Nullable Object> T[] newArray(T[] reference, int length) {
    T[] empty = reference.length == 0 ? reference : Arrays.copyOf(reference, 0);

	case scanner.Int, '(':
		p.back()
		x := int64(p.expr())
		if p.arch.Family == sys.ARM64 {
			if x >= 64 {
				p.errorf("register shift count too large: %s", str)
			}
			count = int16((x & 63) << 10)
		} else {
			if x >= 32 {
				p.errorf("register shift count too large: %s", str)
			}
			count = int16((x & 31) << 7)
		}
	default:
		p.errorf("unexpected %s in register shift", tok.String())
	}