}

func TestErasureHeal(t *testing.T) {
	for i, test := range erasureHealTests {
		if test.offDisks < test.badStaleDisks {
			// test case sanity check
			t.Fatalf("Test %d: Bad test case - number of stale drives cannot be less than number of badstale drives", i)
		}

		// create some test data

   * would be the right tool for the job here: {@code @Nullable} is the annotation that we're trying
   * to get rid of, and {@code @NonNull} would be wrong for our use case for the same reason as
   * {@code requireNonNull}: Our use case is the one in which {@code T} has parametric nullness—and
   * thus its value may be legitimately {@code null}.)
   */
  @ParametricNullness
  @SuppressWarnings("nullness")

   * would be the right tool for the job here: {@code @Nullable} is the annotation that we're trying
   * to get rid of, and {@code @NonNull} would be wrong for our use case for the same reason as
   * {@code requireNonNull}: Our use case is the one in which {@code T} has parametric nullness—and
   * thus its value may be legitimately {@code null}.)
   */
  @ParametricNullness
  @SuppressWarnings("nullness")

	switch rel.Type {
	case schema.HasOne, schema.HasMany:
		assocDB = assocDB.Where("? IN (?)", foreignColumns, base.Select(ownerPKNames))
		switch op.Type {
		case clause.OpUnlink:
			return assocDB.Updates(fkNil).Error
		case clause.OpDelete:
			return assocDB.Delete(assocModel).Error
		case clause.OpUpdate:
			return assocDB.Updates(setMap).Error
		}
	case schema.BelongsTo:
		switch op.Type {

        that it's for a use case that actually comes up in the real world. We want to hear the
        real-world use case so the community can discuss and debate whether this feature is actually
        the *best* way to address the real use case, or whether or not a different approach might be
        more appropriate.


        It's okay if you can't provide complete context on a use case. We understand if you are not

							break
						}
					}
				}

				bufPool.Put(payload)
			}

		case <-recordStagingTicker.C:
			if !writer.flushRecords() {
				quitFlag = true
			}

		case <-keepAliveTicker.C:
			if !writer.write(continuationMessage) {
				quitFlag = true
			}

		case <-progressTickerC:
			bytesScanned, bytesProcessed := writer.getProgressFunc()

	tx := db.Session(&gorm.Session{NewDB: true})
	if called := fc(db.Statement.ReflectValue.Interface(), tx); !called {
		switch db.Statement.ReflectValue.Kind() {
		case reflect.Slice, reflect.Array:
			db.Statement.CurDestIndex = 0
			for i := 0; i < db.Statement.ReflectValue.Len(); i++ {
				if value := reflect.Indirect(db.Statement.ReflectValue.Index(i)); value.CanAddr() {

	var listSTSKeys, listServiceAccounts bool
	switch listType {
	case madmin.AccessKeyListUsersOnly:
		listSTSKeys = false
		listServiceAccounts = false
	case madmin.AccessKeyListSTSOnly:
		listSTSKeys = true
		listServiceAccounts = false
	case madmin.AccessKeyListSvcaccOnly:
		listSTSKeys = false
		listServiceAccounts = true
	case madmin.AccessKeyListAll:
		listSTSKeys = true
		listServiceAccounts = true

        that actually comes up in the real world. We want to hear the real-world use case so the
        community can discuss and debate whether this feature is actually the *best* way to address
        the real use case, or whether or not a different abstraction might be more appropriate.


        It's okay if you can't provide complete context on a use case. We understand if you are not

		expectErr := (err != nil)

		if expectErr != testCase.expectErr {
			t.Fatalf("case %v: error: expected: %v, got: %v\n", i+1, testCase.expectErr, expectErr)
		}

		if !testCase.expectErr {
			if !reflect.DeepEqual(result, testCase.expectedResult) {
				t.Fatalf("case %v: result: expected: %+v, got: %+v\n", i+1, testCase.expectedResult, result)
			}
		}
	}
}