-->

#### What type of PR is this?

<!--
Add one of the following kinds:
/kind bug
/kind cleanup
/kind documentation
/kind feature

Optionally add one or more of the following kinds if applicable:
/kind api-change
/kind deprecation
/kind failing-test
/kind flake
/kind regression
-->

    - [Other (Bug, Cleanup or Flake)](#other-bug-cleanup-or-flake)
- [v1.15.10](#v11510)
  - [Downloads for v1.15.10](#downloads-for-v11510)
    - [Client Binaries](#client-binaries-2)
    - [Server Binaries](#server-binaries-2)
    - [Node Binaries](#node-binaries-2)
  - [Changelog since v1.15.9](#changelog-since-v1159)
  - [Changes by Kind](#changes-by-kind-2)

    "EEE dd-MMM-yyyy HH-mm-ss z",
    "EEE dd-MMM-yy HH:mm:ss z",
    "EEE dd MMM yy HH:mm:ss z",
    "EEE,dd-MMM-yy HH:mm:ss z",
    "EEE,dd-MMM-yyyy HH:mm:ss z",
    "EEE, dd-MM-yyyy HH:mm:ss z",
    // RI bug 6641315 claims a cookie of this format was once served by www.yahoo.com:
    "EEE MMM d yyyy HH:mm:ss z",
  )

private val BROWSER_COMPATIBLE_DATE_FORMATS =

    }
    return dummy;
  }

  /**
   * Similar to the above, but keeps a boolean flag rather than checking for the string accumulated
   * so far being empty. As a result, it does not have the above-mentioned bug.
   */
  @Benchmark
  int booleanIfFirst(int reps) {
    int dummy = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < reps; i++) {
      StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
      boolean append = false;

 * thought of as overkill; however, it's difficult to determine which proper subset of this massive
 * set would be sufficient to expose any possible bug. Brute force is simpler.
 *
 * <p>To use this class the concrete subclass must implement the {@link
 * IteratorTester#newTargetIterator()} method. This is because it's impossible to test an Iterator

  }

  public void testBuilder_presize_negative() {
    assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> ImmutableLongArray.builder(-1));
  }

  /**
   * If there's a bug in builder growth, we wouldn't know how to expose it. So, brute force the hell
   * out of it for a while and see what happens.
   */
  public void testBuilder_bruteForce() {

        smbRandomAccessFile.readFully(buffer);
        assertArrayEquals(new byte[] { 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 }, buffer);
        // Note: There appears to be a bug in the implementation where readFully
        // incorrectly updates the file pointer twice
        assertEquals(10, smbRandomAccessFile.getFilePointer());
    }

 * thought of as overkill; however, it's difficult to determine which proper subset of this massive
 * set would be sufficient to expose any possible bug. Brute force is simpler.
 *
 * <p>To use this class the concrete subclass must implement the {@link
 * IteratorTester#newTargetIterator()} method. This is because it's impossible to test an Iterator

  public void testEqualsIgnoreCaseUnicodeEquivalence() {
    // Note that it's possible in future that the JDK's idea to toUpperCase() or equalsIgnoreCase()
    // may change and break assumptions in this test [*]. This is not a bug in the implementation of
    // Ascii.equalsIgnoreCase(), but it is a signal that its documentation may need updating as
    // regards edge cases.

	if chkName != "chk_public_table_name" {
		t.Errorf("invalid checker name generated, got %v", chkName)
	}

	joinTable := ns.JoinTableName("user_languages")
	if joinTable != "public.user_languages" { // Seems like a bug in NamingStrategy to skip the Replacer when the name is lowercase here.
		t.Errorf("invalid join table generated, got %v", joinTable)
	}

	joinTable2 := ns.JoinTableName("UserLanguage")