max*)
        # In POSIX sh, ulimit -H is undefined. That's why the result is checked to see if it worked.
        # shellcheck disable=SC2039,SC3045
        MAX_FD=$( ulimit -H -n ) ||
            warn "Could not query maximum file descriptor limit"
    esac
    case $MAX_FD in  #(
      '' | soft) :;; #(
      *)
        # In POSIX sh, ulimit -n is undefined. That's why the result is checked to see if it worked.

    private final CountDownLatch delayLatch;

    DelayingIdentityLoader(CountDownLatch delayLatch) {
      this.delayLatch = delayLatch;
    }

    @CanIgnoreReturnValue // Sure, why not?
    @Override
    public T apply(T key) {
      awaitUninterruptibly(delayLatch);
      return key;
    }
  }

  /*

                latch.countDown();
              }
            })
        .start();

    Uninterruptibles.awaitUninterruptibly(latch);

    // See Dispatcher.LegacyAsyncDispatcher for an explanation of why there aren't really any
    // useful testable guarantees about the behavior of that dispatcher in a multithreaded
    // environment. Here we simply test that all the expected dispatches happened in some order.

    }

    public void test_constructorWithString_longMessage() {
        // Test with a long message
        String message = "This is a very long error message that describes in detail why the job was not found. "
                + "The job with identifier XYZ123 was expected to be in the system but could not be located "

/kind feature

Optionally add one or more of the following kinds if applicable:
/kind api-change
/kind deprecation
/kind failing-test
/kind flake
/kind regression
-->

#### What this PR does / why we need it:

#### Which issue(s) this PR is related to:
<!--
Please link relevant issues to help with tracking.

To automatically close the linked issue(s) when this PR is merged,

      required: true

  - type: textarea
    attributes:
      label: How do you want it to be improved?
    validations:
      required: true

  - type: textarea
    attributes:
      label: Why do we need it to be improved?
    validations:
      required: true

  - type: textarea
    attributes:
      label: Example
      description: >

## Links

-   [GitHub project](https://github.com/google/guava)
-   [Issue tracker: Report a defect or feature request](https://github.com/google/guava/issues/new)
-   [StackOverflow: Ask "how-to" and "why-didn't-it-work" questions](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/ask?tags=guava+java)
-   [guava-announce: Announcements of releases and upcoming significant changes](https://groups.google.com/group/guava-announce)

      // return condition1 || condition2;
      if (nodeU().equals(other.nodeU())) { // check condition1
        // Here's the tricky bit. We don't have to explicitly check for condition2 in this case.
        // Why? The second half of condition2 requires that nodeV equals other.nodeU.
        // We already know that nodeU equals other.nodeU. Combined with the earlier statement,

        These advantages can take
        [many forms](https://github.com/google/guava/wiki/PhilosophyExplained#utility), but taking
        the time to discuss them in detail will make it much clearer why this feature should be
        added to Guava.


        Please fill out the following fields to give us a better understanding of your proposed
        feature and its potential value for other Guava users.

     * their users.
     *
     * However, the checker *we* use has this special knowledge about `Collection.toArray()` anyway,
     * so in our implementation code, we can rely on that. That's why the expression below
     * type-checks.
     */
    return super.toArray();
  }

  @GwtIncompatible @J2ktIncompatible private static final long serialVersionUID = 0L;