import com.google.common.collect.UnmodifiableIterator;
import java.util.AbstractSet;
import java.util.Map;
import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable;

/**
 * A class to represent the set of edges connecting an (implicit) origin node to a target node.
 *
 * <p>The {@link #nodeToOutEdge} map means this class only works on networks without parallel edges.
 * See {@link MultiEdgesConnecting} for a class that works with parallel edges.
 *

  # Options for controlling the logger.
  logger:
    level: "debug"
    format: "text" # can also be "json"

# Default values shown below
oauth2:
  # use ["code", "token", "id_token"] to enable implicit flow for web-only clients
  responseTypes: [ "code", "token", "id_token" ] # also allowed are "token" and "id_token"
  # By default, Dex will ask for approval to share data with application

                public interface Inner {
                }
            }
        """

        then:
        rule.maybeViolation(jApiInnerClass) == null
    }

    def "the @since annotation on implicit enum method '#implicitMethod#paramTypes' is not required"() {
        given:
        def rule = withContext(new SinceAnnotationRule([:]))
        def jApiMethod = Stub(JApiMethod)
        jApiMethod.name >> implicitMethod

    * Деякі з цих потоків підходять для створення власного провайдера автентифікації OAuth 2.0 (наприклад, Google, Facebook, X (Twitter), GitHub тощо):
        * `implicit`— неявний
        * `clientCredentials`— облікові дані клієнта
        * `authorizationCode` — код авторизації
    * Але є один окремий «потік», який ідеально підходить для реалізації автентифікації всередині одного додатку:

Самый распространённый — «implicit flow».

Самый безопасный — «code flow», но он сложнее в реализации, так как требует больше шагов. Из‑за сложности многие провайдеры в итоге рекомендуют «implicit flow».

/// note | Примечание

Часто каждый провайдер аутентификации называет свои «flows» по‑разному — как часть бренда.

The most common is the implicit flow.

The most secure is the code flow, but it's more complex to implement as it requires more steps. As it is more complex, many providers end up suggesting the implicit flow.

/// note

It's common that each authentication provider names their flows in a different way, to make it part of their brand.

* `oauth2`: Alle OAuth2-Methoden zum Umgang mit Sicherheit (genannt „Flows“).
    * Mehrere dieser Flows eignen sich zum Aufbau eines OAuth 2.0-Authentifizierungsanbieters (wie Google, Facebook, X (Twitter), GitHub usw.):
        * `implicit`
        * `clientCredentials`
        * `authorizationCode`
    * Es gibt jedoch einen bestimmten „Flow“, der perfekt für die direkte Abwicklung der Authentifizierung in derselben Anwendung verwendet werden kann:

* `oauth2`: all the OAuth2 ways to handle security (called "flows").
    * Several of these flows are appropriate for building an OAuth 2.0 authentication provider (like Google, Facebook, X (Twitter), GitHub, etc):
        * `implicit`
        * `clientCredentials`
        * `authorizationCode`
    * But there is one specific "flow" that can be perfectly used for handling authentication in the same application directly:

* `oauth2`: todas as formas do OAuth2 para lidar com segurança (chamados "fluxos").
    * Vários desses fluxos são apropriados para construir um provedor de autenticação OAuth2 (como Google, Facebook, X (Twitter), GitHub, etc):
        * `implicit`
        * `clientCredentials`
        * `authorizationCode`
    * Mas existe um “fluxo” específico que pode ser perfeitamente usado para resolver autenticação diretamente na mesma aplicação:

        writer.write("\n")
        extensions.forEach {
            writer.write("\n${it.toKotlinString()}")
        }
    }


/**
 * An implicit file class like `AbcKt` that Kotlin generates is also part of the public API,
 * and it should be appropriately marked with `@file:Incubating`.
 *