Events allow you to capture metrics on your application’s HTTP calls. Use events to monitor:

 * The size and frequency of the HTTP calls your application makes. If you’re making too many calls, or your calls are too large, you should know about it!
 * The performance of these calls on the underlying network. If the network’s performance isn’t sufficient, you need to either improve the network or use less of it.

### EventListener

You could then update `test_main.py` with the extended tests:

```Python
{!> ../../docs_src/app_testing/app_b/test_main.py!}
```

Whenever you need the client to pass information in the request and you don't know how to, you can search (Google) how to do it in `httpx`, or even how to do it with `requests`, as HTTPX's design is based on Requests' design.

Then you just do the same in your tests.

E.g.:

	arm.ABEQ,
	arm.ABNE,
	arm.ABCS,
	arm.ABCC,
	arm.ABMI,
	arm.ABPL,
	arm.ABVS,
	arm.ABVC,
	arm.ABHI,
	arm.ABLS,
	arm.ABGE,
	arm.ABLT,
	arm.ABGT,
	arm.ABLE,
	arm.AB,
	obj.ANOP,
}

// ARMConditionCodes handles the special condition code situation for the ARM.
// It returns a boolean to indicate success; failure means cond was unrecognized.

what is explained in that document, and
describes the peculiarities that apply when writing assembly code to interact with Go.
</p>

<p>
The most important thing to know about Go's assembler is that it is not a direct representation of the underlying machine.
Some of the details map precisely to the machine, but some do not.
This is because the compiler suite (see

                   prod code. It's disabled automatically for "test code"
                   (which is good: our tests have intentional violations), but
                   Error Prone doesn't know it's building test code unless we
                   pass -XepCompilingTestOnlyCode, and that argument needs to
                   be passed as part of the same <arg> as -Xplugin:ErrorProne,

                   prod code. It's disabled automatically for "test code"
                   (which is good: our tests have intentional violations), but
                   Error Prone doesn't know it's building test code unless we
                   pass -XepCompilingTestOnlyCode, and that argument needs to
                   be passed as part of the same <arg> as -Xplugin:ErrorProne,

    assertSize(0);
    table = create("foo", 1, 'a', "bar", 1, 'b', "foo", 3, 'c');
    assertSize(3);
  }

  public void testEquals() {
    table = create("foo", 1, 'a', "bar", 1, 'b', "foo", 3, 'c');
    // We know that we have only added non-null Characters.
    Table<String, Integer, Character> hashCopy =
        HashBasedTable.create((Table<String, Integer, ? extends Character>) table);

    LocalCache<?, ?> map = CacheTesting.toLocalCache(cache);

    assertThat(map.segments).hasLength(4);
    // 1 is as low as it goes, not 0. it feels dirty to know this/test this.
    assertEquals(1, map.segments[0].table.length());
    assertEquals(1, map.segments[1].table.length());
    assertEquals(1, map.segments[2].table.length());
    assertEquals(1, map.segments[3].table.length());

    }

    public void test_getText_null() {
        try {
            pdfExtractor.getText(null, null);
            fail();
        } catch (final CrawlerSystemException e) {
            // NOP
        }
    }

    public void test_getPassword_null() {
        String url;
        String resourceName;
        HashMap<String, String> params = new HashMap<>();

        url = null;

Next, for an individual proxy we will check if it could possibly be impacted by the change. For example, we know a sidecar never is impacted by a `Gateway` update, and we can also look at scoping (from `Sidecar.egress.hosts`) to further restrict update scopes.