attributes:
      label: Desired Behavior
      description: What do you want it to do instead?
    validations:
      required: true

  - type: markdown
    attributes:
      value: >
        Did you *actually* encounter the need for this enhancement in a real-world scenario, or does
        it just seem like a sensible behavior for the feature to have?

    @Override
    ListenableFuture<V> runInterruptibly() throws Exception {
      return checkNotNull(
          callable.call(),
          "AsyncCallable.call returned null instead of a Future. "
              + "Did you mean to return immediateFuture(null)? %s",
          callable);
    }

    @Override
    void afterRanInterruptiblySuccess(ListenableFuture<V> result) {
      setFuture(result);
    }

    @Override

   * of a call to {@code remove()}. Thus, the expectation doesn't hold that {@code map.remove(x)}
   * returns the same value which {@code map.get(x)} did immediately beforehand.
   */
  @Override
  public void testRemove() {
    Map<String, Collection<Integer>> map;
    try {
      map = makePopulatedMap();
    } catch (UnsupportedOperationException e) {

	}
	atomic.AddInt64(&r.srStats.ReplicaSize, sz)
	atomic.AddInt64(&r.srStats.ReplicaCount, 1)
}

func (r *ReplicationStats) srUpdate(sr replStat) {
	dID, err := globalSiteReplicationSys.getDeplIDForEndpoint(sr.endpoint())
	if err == nil {
		r.srStats.update(sr, dID)
	}
}

// Update updates in-memory replication statistics with new values.

     */
    int DCERPC_RESERVED_1 = 0x08;
    /**
     * Supports concurrent multiplexing flag.
     */
    int DCERPC_CONC_MPX = 0x10; /* supports concurrent multiplexing */
    /**
     * Did not execute flag - indicates request was not executed
     */
    int DCERPC_DID_NOT_EXECUTE = 0x20;
    /**
     * Maybe flag - indicates 'maybe' call semantics requested
     */

            Thread.interrupted();
            if (interruptingThread.isAlive()) {
              // This will be hidden by test-output redirection:
              logger.severe("InterruptenatorTask did not exit; future tests may be affected");
              /*
               * This won't do any good under JUnit 3, but I'll leave it around in
               * case we ever switch to JUnit 4:
               */

    }

    /**
     * Setup exactly the same as the above test, except that the child project
     * now depends upon d, which has a transitive dependency on c.  Even though
     * we did list an exclusion on c, it was only from within the context of
     * project b.  We will pick up project c in this case because no
     * restrictions were placed on d.  This demonstrates that a, b, c, & d will

    * You wouldn't write an application in Uvicorn directly. That would mean that your code would have to include more or less, at least, all the code provided by Starlette (or **FastAPI**). And if you did that, your final application would have the same overhead as having used a framework and minimizing your app code and bugs.
    * If you are comparing Uvicorn, compare it against Daphne, Hypercorn, uWSGI, etc. Application servers.

      label: GPU model and memory
      description: If compiling from source
  - type: textarea
    id: what-happened
    attributes:
      label: Current behavior?
      description: Also tell us, what did you expect to happen?
      placeholder: Tell us what you see!
    validations:
      required: true
  - type: textarea
    id: code-to-reproduce
    attributes:

      }
      String error = errorMessage.get();
      assertNull(error, error);
    }
    executor.shutdown();
  }

  /**
   * He did the bash, he did the future bash The future bash, it was a concurrency smash He did the
   * bash, it caught on in a flash He did the bash, he did the future bash
   */

  public void testFutureBash() {
    if (isWindows()) {