* 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.

   * be performed atomically on the returned map. Additionally, {@code size} and {@code
   * containsValue} are implemented as bulk read operations, and thus may fail to observe concurrent
   * writes.
   *
   * @return a serializable concurrent map having the requested features
   */
  public <K, V> ConcurrentMap<K, V> makeMap() {
    if (!useCustomMap) {

   */
  // This the best we could do to get copyOfEnumSet to compile in the mainline.
  // The suppression also covers the cast to E[], discussed below.
  // In the backport, we don't have those cases and thus don't need this suppression.
  // We keep it to minimize diffs.
  @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
  public static <E> ImmutableSet<E> copyOf(Collection<? extends E> elements) {
    /*

   *       take each of the servers offline, {@code consistentHash} will be a poor fit: It provides
   *       no way for you to specify which of the three buckets is disappearing. Thus, if your
   *       buckets change from {@code [alpha, bravo, charlie]} to {@code [bravo, charlie]}, it will
   *       assign all the old {@code alpha} traffic to {@code bravo} and all the old {@code bravo}

     * implementation, because {@code map.get()} returns a view collection that changes in the
     * course 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() {

   *
   * <p>The returned array will be "safe" in that no references to it are maintained by this queue.
   * (In other words, this method must allocate a new array). The caller is thus free to modify the
   * returned array.
   *
   * <p>This method acts as bridge between array-based and collection-based APIs.
   *
   * @return an array containing all of the elements in this queue
   */

   * values are merged using the specified merging function. If the merging function returns {@code
   * null}, then the collector removes the value that has been computed for the key thus far (though
   * future occurrences of the key would reinsert it).
   *
   * <p>Entries will appear in the encounter order of the first occurrence of the key.
   *
   * @since 33.2.0 (available since 21.0 in guava-jre)

c?dol?f?l!lecrev?opan?rof&-anesec?anesec???m?n&a&part?rt&-attelrab-airdna?attelrabairdna???imir?ret??p?r!a&b?ilgac?ssas???s!idnirb??t&ei&hc?r??sa??v??l&a!c??b?c?o&m?rit&-&d&eus&-&nitnert?onitnert??nitnert?onitnert??us&-&nitnert?onitnert??nitnert?onitnert??üs&-&nitnert?onitnert??nitnert?onitnert???s&-onitnert?onitnert???d&eus!-&n&asl&ab?ub??ezob?itnert??onitnert??nitnert?onitnert??us&-&n&asl&ab?ub??ezob?itnert??onitnert??nitnert?onitnert??üs!-&n&asl&ab?ub??ezob?itnert??onitnert??nitnert?onitnert?...

 * </ul>
 *
 * <h2>EventBus Summary</h2>
 *
 * <p>The EventBus allows publish-subscribe-style communication between components without requiring
 * the components to explicitly register with one another (and thus be aware of each other). It is
 * designed exclusively to replace traditional Java in-process event distribution using explicit
 * registration. It is not a general-purpose publish-subscribe system, nor is it intended

   *       .testEquals();
   *   }
   * }
   * </pre>
   *
   * <p>It will test that Foo objects created by the {@code create(a, b, c, d)} factory method with
   * equal parameters are equal and vice versa, thus indirectly tests the builder equality.
   */
  public void testEquals(Class<?> cls) {
    try {
      doTestEquals(cls);
    } catch (Exception e) {
      throwIfUnchecked(e);