blank_issues_enabled: false
contact_links:
  - name: Security Contact
    about: Please report security vulnerabilities to ******@****.***
  - name: Question or Problem
    about: Ask a question or ask about a problem in GitHub Discussions.
    url: https://github.com/fastapi/fastapi/discussions/categories/questions
  - name: Feature Request

Provide a reproducible test case that is the bare minimum necessary to generate
the problem. If possible, please share a link to Colab/Jupyter/any notebook.

Also, please include a link to a GraphDef or the model if possible.

**Any other info / logs**

Include any logs or source code that would be helpful to diagnose the problem.
If including tracebacks, please include the full traceback. Large logs and files

  }

  private static class StringWrapper {
    private final String value;

    StringWrapper(String value) {
      this.value = value;
    }
  }

  @GwtIncompatible // J2CL generics problem
  public void testAndThen() {
    Converter<StringWrapper, String> first =
        new Converter<StringWrapper, String>() {
          @Override
          protected String doForward(StringWrapper object) {

---
name: Feature request
about: Suggest an idea
title: ''
labels: enhancement
assignees: ''

---

Start by telling us what problem you’re trying to solve. Often a solution already exists!

                    server = result.getServer();

                    if (logger.isDebugEnabled()) {
                        for (SettingsProblem problem : result.getProblems()) {
                            logger.debug(problem.getMessage(), problem.getException());
                        }
                    }

   * A word about using {@link Equivalence}, which automatically checks for {@code null} and
   * identical inputs: This sounds like it ought to be a problem here, since the goals of this class
   * include testing that {@code equals()} is reflexive and is tolerant of {@code null}. However,
   * there's no problem. The reason: {@link EqualsTester} tests {@code null} and identical inputs
   * directly against {@code equals()} rather than through the {@code Equivalence}.

      e is FileNotFoundException
  }

  private fun isRecoverable(
    e: IOException,
    requestSendStarted: Boolean,
  ): Boolean {
    // If there was a protocol problem, don't recover.
    if (e is ProtocolException) {
      return false
    }

    // If there was an interruption don't recover, but if there was a timeout connecting to a route

        if (e.getCause() instanceof ModelBuildingException mbe) {
            for (ModelProblem problem : mbe.getProblems()) {
                if (problem.getException() instanceof UnresolvableModelException) {
                    return problem;
                }
            }
        }
        return null;
    }

    private boolean isMissingPom(Exception e) {

   * nullness analysis might not understand that the field has been populated. To avoid that problem
   * without having to add {@code @SuppressWarnings}, the code can call this method.
   *
   * <p>Why <i>not</i> just add {@code SuppressWarnings}? The problem is that this method is
   * typically useful for {@code return} statements. That leaves the code with two options: Either

   * A word about using {@link Equivalence}, which automatically checks for {@code null} and
   * identical inputs: This sounds like it ought to be a problem here, since the goals of this class
   * include testing that {@code equals()} is reflexive and is tolerant of {@code null}. However,
   * there's no problem. The reason: {@link EqualsTester} tests {@code null} and identical inputs
   * directly against {@code equals()} rather than through the {@code Equivalence}.