*       other code to use these forms too. Only the most typically used JUnit assertion methods are
 *       defined this way, but enough to live with.
 *   <li>If you override {@link #setUp} or {@link #tearDown}, make sure to invoke {@code
 *       super.setUp} and {@code super.tearDown} within them. These methods are used to clear and
 *       check for thread assertion failures.

 * or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under
 * the License.
 */

/**
 * Utility methods and classes for networking (such as IP addresses and domain names).
 *
 * <p>This package is a part of the open-source <a href="https://github.com/google/guava">Guava</a>
 * library.
 *
 * @author Craig Berry
 */

    implements RowSortedTable<R, C, V> {
  /*
   * TODO(jlevy): Consider adding headTable, tailTable, and subTable methods,
   * which return a Table view with rows keys in a given range. Create a
   * RowSortedTable subinterface with the revised methods?
   */

  StandardRowSortedTable(
      SortedMap<R, Map<C, V>> backingMap, Supplier<? extends Map<C, V>> factory) {
    super(backingMap, factory);

import com.google.common.reflect.ClassPath.ClassInfo;
import com.google.common.reflect.TypeToken;
import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import junit.framework.TestCase;

/**
 * Tests that all package-private {@code writeReplace} methods are overridden in any existing
 * subclasses. Without such overrides, optimizers might put a {@code writeReplace}-containing class
 * and its subclass in different packages, causing the serialization system to fail to invoke {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code