for (int i = 0; i < 11; i++) {
      limiter.acquire(); // #7, showing off the warmup starting from totally cold
    }

    // make sure the areas (times) remain the same, while permits are different
    assertEvents(
        "R0.00, R1.38, R1.13, R0.88, R0.63, R0.50, R0.50, R0.50", // #1
        "U4.50", // #2
        "R0.00, R1.38, R1.13", // #3, after that the rate changes

    for (int i = 0; i < 11; i++) {
      limiter.acquire(); // #7, showing off the warmup starting from totally cold
    }

    // make sure the areas (times) remain the same, while permits are different
    assertEvents(
        "R0.00, R1.38, R1.13, R0.88, R0.63, R0.50, R0.50, R0.50", // #1
        "U4.50", // #2
        "R0.00, R1.38, R1.13", // #3, after that the rate changes

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *
 * <p>The {@code Iterable} specification does not make it absolutely clear what should happen on a
 * second invocation, so implementors have made various choices, including:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>returning the same iterator again
 *   <li>throwing an exception of some kind
 *   <li>or the usual, <i>robust</i> behavior, which all known {@link Collection} implementations
 *       have, of returning a new, independent iterator
 * </ul>
 *

            // Wait for first process to be running
            Thread.sleep(100);
            assertTrue(processHelper.isProcessRunning(sessionId));

            // Start second process with same session ID (should replace first)
            JobProcess jobProcess2 = processHelper.startProcess(sessionId, cmdList2, pbCall);
            assertNotNull(jobProcess2);

            // Wait for second process to be running

 * * `Response.body().charStream().close()`
 * * `Response.body().byteStream().close()`
 * * `Response.body().bytes()`
 * * `Response.body().string()`
 *
 * There is no benefit to invoking multiple `close()` methods for the same response body.
 *
 * For synchronous calls, the easiest way to make sure a response body is closed is with a `try`
 * block. With this structure the compiler inserts an implicit `finally` clause that calls