Whenever you pass exactly the same content (exactly the same password) you get exactly the same gibberish.

But you cannot convert from the gibberish back to the password.

##### Why use password hashing

If your database is stolen, the thief won't have your users' plaintext passwords, only the hashes.

    ...
```

Python will have to compare the whole `stanleyjobso` in both `stanleyjobsox` and `stanleyjobson` before realizing that both strings are not the same. So it will take some extra microseconds to reply back "Incorrect username or password".

#### The time to answer helps the attackers

This example includes an extra *path operation* that simulates a long processing request with `time.sleep(sleep_time)`.

It will have the database connection open at the beginning and will just wait some seconds before replying back. And each new request will wait one second less.

This will easily let you test that your app with Peewee and FastAPI is behaving correctly with all the stuff about threads.

    assertThat(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS.toMillis(elapsedUntilPong3).toDouble())
      .isCloseTo(1500.0, 250.0)

    // The client pinged the server 3 times, and it has ponged back 3 times.
    assertThat(webSocket.sentPingCount()).isEqualTo(3)
    assertThat(server.receivedPingCount()).isEqualTo(3)
    assertThat(webSocket.receivedPongCount()).isEqualTo(3)

  }

  /**
   * Ignored due to incompatibilities between Android and Java on how non-ASCII subject alt names
   * are parsed. Android fails to parse these, which means we fall back to the CN. The RI does parse
   * them, so the CN is unused.
   */
  @Test fun verifyNonAsciiSubjectAlt() {
    // Expecting actual:
    //  ["bar.com", "花子.co.jp"]
    // to contain exactly (and in same order):

    client.processNextFrame()
    taskFaker.runTasks()
    server.webSocket!!.pong("pong 3".encodeUtf8())
    client.processNextFrame()

    // After 500ms the client automatically pings and the server pongs back.
    taskFaker.advanceUntil(ns(500L))
    server.processNextFrame() // Ping.
    client.processNextFrame() // Pong.

    // After 1000ms the client will attempt a ping 2, but we don't process it. That'll cause the

-   If the PR passes all the quality checks then we go ahead and assign a
    reviewer.
-   If the PR didn't meet the validation criteria, we request for additional
    changes to be made to PR to pass quality checks and send it back or on a
    rare occasion we may reject it.

**3. Review**

-   For a valid PR, reviewer (person familiar with the code/functionality)
    checks if the PR looks good or needs additional changes.

    assertThat(countFrames(logs, "FINE: << 0x00000000     8 PING          "))
      .isEqualTo(1)
    assertThat(countFrames(logs, "FINE: >> 0x00000000     8 PING          ACK"))
      .isEqualTo(1)
    assertThat(countFrames(logs, "FINE: << 0x00000000     8 PING          ACK"))
      .isEqualTo(1)
  }

  @Flaky @ParameterizedTest
  @ArgumentsSource(ProtocolParamProvider::class)
  fun missingPongsFailsConnection(

### Writing controllers

# its own file.

on:
  - pr_created
  - commit
  - comment_added

automations:

  javadoc_on_new_files:
    # Triggered for new Java files that lack Javadoc content.
    if:

      - {{ ('javadoc_on_new_files' | isEnabledAutomation(pr)) }}
      - {{ is.java and is.new }}
      - {{ source.diff.files | matchDiffLines(regex=r/\/*\*([\s\S]*?)\//) | nope }}
    run: