import static java.util.Collections.singleton;
import static org.apache.maven.model.building.ModelProblem.Severity.ERROR;
import static org.apache.maven.model.building.ModelProblem.Severity.FATAL;

/**
 * There are various forms of results that are represented by this class:
 * <ol>
 * <li>success - in which case only the model field is set
 * <li>success with warnings - model field + non-error model problems
 * <li>error - no model, but diagnostics

Istio consumes _many_ different types of clients (at the time of writing, 7), as well as informers for each of these.
Additionally, we often need to convert to various different client forms for different libraries we integrate with.

`kube.Client` just bundles these all in one place, so we have a single object to pass around anywhere we need Kubernetes access.

        forking Guava yourself.


        We want to see that new features have some significant advantage over the alternatives.
        These advantages can take
        [many forms](https://github.com/google/guava/wiki/PhilosophyExplained#utility), but taking
        the time to discuss them in detail will make it much clearer why this feature should be
        added to Guava.

      exercising permissions granted by this License.

      "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications,
      including but not limited to software source code, documentation
      source, and configuration files.

      "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical
      transformation or translation of a Source form, including but
      not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation,

the ca client to use certificates written to the same directory we have configured them to be written to.

## Authentication

The agent supports two forms of authentication with the CA/discovery servers: mTLS and JWT. Varying deployment
topologies mix and match these two.

For a standard Kubernetes deployment, both CA and discovery will use JWT authentication, with a token automatically

    /**
     * The media-type multipart/form-data follows the rules of all multipart MIME data streams as
     * outlined in RFC 2046. In forms, there are a series of fields to be supplied by the user who
     * fills out the form. Each field has a name. Within a given form, the names are unique.
     */
    @JvmField
    val FORM = "multipart/form-data".toMediaType()

type JSONPathElement struct {
	Key            *ObjectKey `parser:"  @@"`               // ['name'] and .name forms
	Index          *int       `parser:"| \"[\" @Int \"]\""` // [3] form
	ObjectWildcard bool       `parser:"| @\".*\""`          // .* form
	ArrayWildcard  bool       `parser:"| @\"[*]\""`         // [*] form
}

// JSONPath represents a keypath.
// Instances should be treated idempotent and not change once created.

//
// All rights reserved.
//
// Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
// modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
// are met:
// 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
//    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
// 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright

 *
 * Pinning is per-hostname and/or per-wildcard pattern. To pin both `publicobject.com` and
 * `www.publicobject.com` you must configure both hostnames. Or you may use patterns to match
 * sets of related domain names. The following forms are permitted:
 *
 *  * **Full domain name**: you may pin an exact domain name like `www.publicobject.com`. It won't
 *    match additional prefixes (`us-west.www.publicobject.com`) or suffixes (`publicobject.com`).
 *

     *
     * Expected outputs are generated by the code itself, but they've been
     * 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: