fieldValues[idx], _ = field.ValueOf(tx.Statement.Context, elem)
		}

		datas, ok := identityMap[utils.ToStringKey(fieldValues...)]
		if !ok {
			return fmt.Errorf("failed to assign association %#v, make sure foreign fields exists", elem.Interface())
		}

		for _, data := range datas {
			reflectFieldValue := rel.Field.ReflectValueOf(tx.Statement.Context, data)

    peer.play()

    // Play it back.
    val connection = connect(peer)
    connection.writePingAndAwaitPong() // Make sure settings have been acked.
    val stream = connection.newStream(headerEntries("b", "banana"), true)
    connection.writePingAndAwaitPong() // Make sure the window update has been received.
    val sink = stream.sink
    stream.writeTimeout().timeout(500, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)

       *
       * My impression is that an AtomicReferenceFieldUpdater in a static field is similarly fast to
       * Unsafe on modern JVMs (if perhaps not quite as fast as VarHandle?). However, I'm not sure
       * exactly what we've benchmarked, and we certainly haven't benchmarked as far back as JDK 8.
       * (We also haven't benchmarked under Android. We continue to use UnsafeAtomicHelper there so

                 * issue on the host. There's not much we can do about it. Just
                 * to suppress NPEs that would result we can create a possibly bogus
                 * address. Pretty sure the below cannot actually thrown a UHE tho.
                 */
                try {
                    localInetAddress = InetAddress.getByName("127.0.0.1");
                } catch (final UnknownHostException ignored) {

    @Test
    void testMirrorStopOnFirstMatch() {
        // exact matches win first
        Mirror mirrorA2 = newMirror("a2", "a,b", "http://a2");
        Mirror mirrorA = newMirror("a", "a", "http://a");
        // make sure repeated entries are skipped
        Mirror mirrorA3 = newMirror("a", "a", "http://a3");

        Mirror mirrorB = newMirror("b", "b", "http://b");
        Mirror mirrorC = newMirror("c", "d,e", "http://de");

### Enable Keycloak Admin REST API support

Before being able to authenticate against the Admin REST API using a client_id and a client_secret you need to make sure the client is configured as it follows:

- `account` client_id is a confidential client that belongs to the realm `{realm}`
- `account` client_id is has **Service Accounts Enabled** option enabled.

 *
 * ## Setting up Certificate Pinning
 *
 * The easiest way to pin a host is turn on pinning with a broken configuration and read the
 * expected configuration when the connection fails. Be sure to do this on a trusted network, and
 * without man-in-the-middle tools like [Charles][charles] or [Fiddler][fiddler].
 *
 * For example, to pin `https://publicobject.com`, start with a broken configuration:
 *
 * ```java

/// tip

By the spec, you should return a JSON with an `access_token` and a `token_type`, the same as in this example.

This is something that you have to do yourself in your code, and make sure you use those JSON keys.

It's almost the only thing that you have to remember to do correctly yourself, to be compliant with the specifications.

For the rest, **FastAPI** handles it for you.

///

resources in many different ways and solutions exist to prevent this from
happening (e.g., rate limits, ACLs, monitors to restart broken servers).

### Model sharing

If the multitenant design allows sharing models, make sure that tenants and
users are aware of the security risks detailed here and that they are going to
be practically running code provided by other users. Currently there are no good

 *
 * @author mike nonemacher
 */

@NullUnmarked
public class PopulatedCachesTest extends TestCase {
  // we use integers as keys; make sure the range covers some values that ARE cached by
  // Integer.valueOf(int), and some that are not cached. (127 is the highest cached value.)
  static final int WARMUP_MIN = 120;
  static final int WARMUP_MAX = 135;