OtherID: "1234",
		Data:    "something",
	}

	DB.Create(&thing)

	thing2 := Thing{
		SomeID:  "1234",
		OtherID: "1234",
		Data:    "something else",
	}

	result := DB.Clauses(clause.OnConflict{
		OnConstraint: "some_id_other_id_unique",
		UpdateAll:    true,
	}).Create(&thing2)
	if result.Error != nil {
		t.Errorf("creating second thing: %v", result.Error)
	}

	var things []Thing

    lock03 = factory3.newReentrantLock(OtherOrder.THIRD);
  }

  // In the unittest, create each ordered factory with its own set of lock
  // graph nodes (as opposed to using the static per-Enum map) to avoid
  // conflicts across different test runs.
  private <E extends Enum<E>>
      CycleDetectingLockFactory.WithExplicitOrdering<E> newInstanceWithExplicitOrdering(
          Class<E> enumClass, Policy policy) {

    lock03 = factory3.newReentrantLock(OtherOrder.THIRD);
  }

  // In the unittest, create each ordered factory with its own set of lock
  // graph nodes (as opposed to using the static per-Enum map) to avoid
  // conflicts across different test runs.
  private <E extends Enum<E>>
      CycleDetectingLockFactory.WithExplicitOrdering<E> newInstanceWithExplicitOrdering(
          Class<E> enumClass, Policy policy) {

 * multi-level dependency graph to a map of ordered lists that can be turned into classpaths.
 * During this process only the most relevant version of each artifact
 * (based on group ID and artifact ID) is retained, resolving conflicts and eliminating duplicates to ensure
 * that each dependency is included only once in the final build.</p>
 *
 * <p><dfn>Dependency resolution</dfn> is the process of collecting dependencies, flattening the result graph,

    }

    // Test destroyContainer private static method via reflection
    @Test
    public void test_destroyContainer() throws Exception {
        // Test destroyContainer method - skip this test as it conflicts with container management
        // The test framework manages the container lifecycle
        assertTrue(true);
    }

    // Test process method with different options
    @Test

emoveData","parent","closest","CLASS_NAME_ALERT","closeEvent","Event","removeClass","hasClass","_destroyElement","detach","remove","_jQueryInterface","each","$element","data","_handleDismiss","alertInstance","preventDefault","on","Constructor","noConflict","CLASS_NAME_ACTIVE","SELECTOR_DATA_TOGGLE_CARROT","SELECTOR_INPUT","SELECTOR_BUTTON","Button","shouldAvoidTriggerChange","toggle","triggerChangeEvent","addAriaPressed","input","type","checked","classList","contains","activeElement","focus","ha...

            }
        }
        if (gasLocations.values().stream().anyMatch(l -> l.size() > 1)) {
            throw new IllegalStateException("Extension conflicts in file " + extensionFile + ": "
                    + gasLocations.entrySet().stream()
                            .map(e -> e.getKey() + " defined on lines "
                                    + e.getValue().stream()

   *       using this method. For example, {@code not(in(target))} is generally more readable than
   *       {@code not(target::contains)}.
   *   <li>This method's name conflicts with Kotlin's {@code in} operator.
   * </ul>
   *
   * <p><b>Discouraged:</b> Prefer using either {@code target::contains} or {@code x ->

Of course, there are some cases where there's no problem in running the previous steps multiple times, in that case, it's a lot easier to handle.

/// tip

   *       using this method. For example, {@code not(in(target))} is generally more readable than
   *       {@code not(target::contains)}.
   *   <li>This method's name conflicts with Kotlin's {@code in} operator.
   * </ul>
   *
   * <p><b>Discouraged:</b> Prefer using either {@code target::contains} or {@code x ->