*       to make such changes to our serialized forms, and we have made them before, usually
   *       without trouble. In this case, my guess is that our chosen approach is even less likely
   *       to lead to trouble than an incompatible change would be.
   *   <li>We could make {@link #countMap} no longer be {@code final}. Then we could write to it
   *       directly during deserialization. However, we would lose Java's guarantees for {@code

            DfsReferralDataImpl unwrapped = referralData.unwrap(DfsReferralDataImpl.class);
            assertSame(referralData, unwrapped);
        }

        @Test
        @DisplayName("Should throw ClassCastException for incompatible type")
        void testUnwrapToIncompatibleType() {
            // Create a mock class that extends DfsReferralData but is not compatible
            class IncompatibleReferralData implements DfsReferralData {

  public Spliterator<E> spliterator() {
    return Spliterators.spliterator(this, SPLITERATOR_CHARACTERISTICS);
  }

  private static final Object[] EMPTY_ARRAY = {};

  @Override
  @J2ktIncompatible // Incompatible return type change. Use inherited (unoptimized) implementation
  public final Object[] toArray() {
    return toArray(EMPTY_ARRAY);
  }

  @CanIgnoreReturnValue
  @Override
  /*

   * the cache, but only the "generic" one is type-safe. That is, it will properly prevent you from
   * building caches whose key or value types are incompatible with the types accepted by the
   * weigher already provided; the {@code CacheBuilder} type cannot do this. For best results,
   * simply use the standard method-chaining idiom, as illustrated in the documentation at top,

    assertFalse(set.contains(""));
    assertFalse(set.contains("california"));
    assertFalse(set.contains(null));
  }

  @SuppressWarnings("CollectionIncompatibleType") // testing incompatible types
  public void testExplicit_containsMismatchedTypes() {
    SortedSet<String> set =
        ImmutableSortedSet.orderedBy(STRING_LENGTH)
            .add("in", "the", "quick", "jumped", "over", "a")

  public Spliterator<E> spliterator() {
    return Spliterators.spliterator(this, SPLITERATOR_CHARACTERISTICS);
  }

  private static final Object[] EMPTY_ARRAY = {};

  @Override
  @J2ktIncompatible // Incompatible return type change. Use inherited (unoptimized) implementation
  public final Object[] toArray() {
    return toArray(EMPTY_ARRAY);
  }

  @CanIgnoreReturnValue
  @Override
  /*

        <field>
          <name>v4Api</name>
          <version>1.1.0</version>
          <type>boolean</type>
          <description>Marks this Mojo as using Maven 4 API. This makes the plugin implicitly incompatible with earlier Maven versions. Only evaluated since Maven 4.</description>
          <defaultValue>false</defaultValue>
        </field>
        <field>
          <name>instantiationStrategy</name>

   *       to make such changes to our serialized forms, and we have made them before, usually
   *       without trouble. In this case, my guess is that our chosen approach is even less likely
   *       to lead to trouble than an incompatible change would be.
   *   <li>We could make {@link #countMap} no longer be {@code final}. Then we could write to it
   *       directly during deserialization. However, we would lose Java's guarantees for {@code

## Dependencies

### Added
_Nothing has changed._

### Changed
- github.com/evanphx/json-patch: [v5.6.0+incompatible → v4.12.0+incompatible](https://github.com/evanphx/json-patch/compare/v5.6.0...v4.12.0)
- github.com/google/cel-go: [v0.16.0 → v0.16.1](https://github.com/google/cel-go/compare/v0.16.0...v0.16.1)

### Removed

    NullPointerTester tester = new NullPointerTester();
    tester.setDefault(int.class, 1);
    tester.testAllPublicStaticMethods(IntMath.class);
  }

  @GwtIncompatible // isPrime is GWT-incompatible
  public void testIsPrime() {
    // Defer correctness tests to Long.isPrime

    // Check the first 100,000 integers
    for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {