* then comparing those results using {@code this}. For example, to compare objects by their
   * string forms, in a case-insensitive manner, use:
   *
   * <pre>{@code
   * Ordering.from(String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER)
   *     .onResultOf(Functions.toStringFunction())
   * }</pre>
   *
   * <p><b>Java 8+ users:</b> Use {@code Comparator.comparing(function, thisComparator)} instead

            <p>
            We check the binary compatibility by comparing the current code’s binary interfaces
            against THE LATEST VERSION WHICH IS RELEASED FROM RELEASE BRANCH (from `released-version.json` on this branch)

But then the attackers try with username `stanleyjobsox` and password `love123`.

And your application code does something like:

import org.apache.maven.project.MavenProject;
import org.codehaus.plexus.PlexusContainer;
import org.eclipse.aether.DefaultRepositoryCache;
import org.eclipse.aether.transfer.TransferListener;

import static java.util.Comparator.comparing;
import static org.apache.maven.cling.invoker.Utils.toProperties;

public abstract class DefaultMavenInvoker<
                O extends MavenOptions,
                R extends MavenInvokerRequest<O>,

// These tests should not be confused with `[*]_grad_test` which compare the
// result of `gradient_checker` and `[*]_grad`. The tests here test the
// functionality of `gradient_checker` by comparing the result with expected
// manual user-provided gradients.
class GradientCheckerTest
    : public ::testing::TestWithParam<std::tuple<const char*, bool, bool>> {
 protected:
  void SetUp() override {

            for (final File file : jarFiles) {
                list.add(getArtifactFromFileName(artifactType, file.getName()));
            }
            list.sort(Comparator.comparing(Artifact::getName));
            return list.toArray(new Artifact[list.size()]);
        }

        final File[] jarFiles = ResourceUtil.getPluginJarFiles(artifactType.getId());

    attributes:
      label: 3. What would that same code look like if we added your feature?
    validations:
      required: true

  - type: markdown
    attributes:
      value: >
        Comparing two approaches to a use case side by side can make it easier to examine the
        differences between them.


        Additionally, it's very useful to us if you can provide a "straw API" — what the

        // Under some edge cases (such as the proxy of JDK types serialized and then deserialized)
        // the proxy type may not be the same.
        // We first check isProxyClass() so that the common case of comparing with non-proxy objects
        // is efficient.
        || (Proxy.isProxyClass(arg.getClass())
            && Arrays.equals(arg.getClass().getInterfaces(), proxyClass.getInterfaces()));
  }

        valueMap.put("action", action.replace('\t', '_').toUpperCase(Locale.ENGLISH));
        valueMap.put("user", user.map(FessUserBean::getUserId).orElse("-"));
        final Comparator<Map.Entry<String, String>> c = Comparator.comparing(Map.Entry::getKey);
        params.entrySet().stream().sorted(c).forEach(e -> {
            valueMap.put(e.getKey(), e.getValue().replace('\t', '_'));
        });
        log(valueMap);
    }

        return lifecyclesMap.values().stream()
                .peek(l -> Objects.requireNonNull(l.getId(), "A lifecycle must have an id."))
                .sorted(Comparator.comparing(Lifecycle::getId, comparator))
                .collect(Collectors.toList());
    }

    private Map<String, Lifecycle> lookupLifecycles() {
        // TODO: Remove the following code when maven-compat is gone