assertEquals(200, response.code)
    }

    client.connectionPool.evictAll()
    assertEquals(0, client.connectionPool.connectionCount())

    // Force reuse. This appears flaky (30% of the time) even though sessions are reused.
    // javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException: No new session is allowed and no existing
    // session can be resumed
    //
    // Report https://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=JDK-8264944

  //   system scheduling and as such we could either miss our deadline, or unpark() could be delayed
  //   so that it looks like we timed out even though we didn't. For comparison FutureTask respects
  //   completion preferably and AQS is non-deterministic (depends on where in the queue the waiter

    Object writeReplace() {
    return new SerializedForm<V>(map);
  }

  @GwtIncompatible
  @J2ktIncompatible
  /*
   * The mainline copy of ImmutableMapValues doesn't produce this serialized form anymore, though
   * the backport does. For now, we're keeping the class declaration in *both* flavors so that both
   * flavors can read old data or data from the other flavor. However, we strongly discourage

    }

    /**
     * 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

     * checked against the inputs under Bash in order to confirm that the two
     * forms are equivalent (though not necessarily minimal, though we hope this
     * to be the case). Thus, this test is more of a regression test.
     *
     * Rough instructions to regenerate the test outputs and verify correctness:
     * - Temporarily change this test:
     * --- Comment out assertEquals.

  @Override
  public Set<V> replaceValues(@ParametricNullness K key, Iterable<? extends V> values) {
    return (Set<V>) super.replaceValues(key, values);
  }

  /**
   * {@inheritDoc}
   *
   * <p>Though the method signature doesn't say so explicitly, the returned map has {@link Set}
   * values.
   */
  @Override
  public Map<K, Collection<V>> asMap() {
    return super.asMap();
  }

  /**

        .suppressing(suppressForLinkedBlockingQueue())
        .createTestSuite();
  }

  // Not specifying KNOWN_ORDER for PriorityQueue and PriorityBlockingQueue
  // even though they do have it, because our tests interpret KNOWN_ORDER to
  // also mean that the iterator returns the head element first, which those
  // don't.

  public Test testsForPriorityBlockingQueue() {

 * common to all multimaps.
 *
 * <p>The {@link #get}, {@link #removeAll}, and {@link #replaceValues} methods each return a {@link
 * Set} of values, while {@link #entries} returns a {@code Set} of map entries. Though the method
 * signature doesn't say so explicitly, the map returned by {@link #asMap} has {@code Set} values.
 *
 * <p>If the values corresponding to a single key should be ordered according to a {@link

 * common to all multimaps.
 *
 * <p>The {@link #get}, {@link #removeAll}, and {@link #replaceValues} methods each return a {@link
 * Set} of values, while {@link #entries} returns a {@code Set} of map entries. Though the method
 * signature doesn't say so explicitly, the map returned by {@link #asMap} has {@code Set} values.
 *
 * <p>If the values corresponding to a single key should be ordered according to a {@link

        throw sendRequestException
      }
      throw e
    }
  }

  private fun shouldIgnoreAndWaitForRealResponse(code: Int): Boolean =
    when {
      // Server sent a 100-continue even though we did not request one. Try again to read the
      // actual response status.
      code == 100 -> true

      // Handle Processing (102) & Early Hints (103) and any new codes without failing