* such as:
   *
   * - Make checkOpen return the non-null `seq`. Then callers can assign that to a local variable or
   *   even back to `this.seq`. However, that may suggest that we're defending against concurrent
   *   mutation, which is not an actual risk because we use `synchronized`.
   * - Make `remaining` require a non-null `seq` argument. But this is a bit weird because the

  @ListFeature.Require(SUPPORTS_SET)
  public void testSet_null() {
    doTestSet(null);
  }

  @CollectionSize.Require(absent = ZERO)
  @CollectionFeature.Require(ALLOWS_NULL_VALUES)
  @ListFeature.Require(SUPPORTS_SET)
  public void testSet_replacingNull() {
    E[] elements = createSamplesArray();
    int i = aValidIndex();
    elements[i] = null;
    collection = getSubjectGenerator().create(elements);

    doTestSet(e3());

 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code
 *       ImmutableList.get} returns {@code E}, but that value is never {@code null}. (Accordingly,
 *       {@code ImmutableList} is declared to forbid {@code ImmutableList<@Nullable String>}.)
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can return {@code null} regardless

 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code
 *       ImmutableList.get} returns {@code E}, but that value is never {@code null}. (Accordingly,
 *       {@code ImmutableList} is declared to forbid {@code ImmutableList<@Nullable String>}.)
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can return {@code null} regardless

 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code
 *       ImmutableList.get} returns {@code E}, but that value is never {@code null}. (Accordingly,
 *       {@code ImmutableList} is declared to forbid {@code ImmutableList<@Nullable String>}.)
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can return {@code null} regardless

   * such as:
   *
   * - Make checkOpen return the non-null `seq`. Then callers can assign that to a local variable or
   *   even back to `this.seq`. However, that may suggest that we're defending against concurrent
   *   mutation, which is not an actual risk because we use `synchronized`.
   * - Make `remaining` require a non-null `seq` argument. But this is a bit weird because the

 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code
 *       ImmutableList.get} returns {@code E}, but that value is never {@code null}. (Accordingly,
 *       {@code ImmutableList} is declared to forbid {@code ImmutableList<@Nullable String>}.)
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can return {@code null} regardless

 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code
 *       ImmutableList.get} returns {@code E}, but that value is never {@code null}. (Accordingly,
 *       {@code ImmutableList} is declared to forbid {@code ImmutableList<@Nullable String>}.)
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can return {@code null} regardless

 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code
 *       ImmutableList.get} returns {@code E}, but that value is never {@code null}. (Accordingly,
 *       {@code ImmutableList} is declared to forbid {@code ImmutableList<@Nullable String>}.)
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can return {@code null} regardless

        project.setArtifacts( project.createArtifacts( null ) );

        String key = ArtifactUtils.versionlessKey( groupId, artifactId );

        Map artifactMap = project.getArtifactMap();

        assertNotNull( artifactMap, "artifact-map should not be null." );
        assertEquals( 1, artifactMap.size(), "artifact-map should contain 1 element." );