// It is possible due to races that we are currently in the expected state even though we
      // timed out. e.g. if we weren't event able to grab the lock within the timeout we would never
      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead
      // to a confusing error message.
      throw new TimeoutException("Timed out waiting for " + this + " to reach the RUNNING state.");
    }
  }

  }

  public void testInitialCapacity_large() {
    CacheBuilder.newBuilder().initialCapacity(Integer.MAX_VALUE);
    // that the builder didn't blow up is enough;
    // don't actually create this monster!
  }

  public void testConcurrencyLevel_zero() {
    CacheBuilder<Object, Object> builder = CacheBuilder.newBuilder();

  }

  public void testInitialCapacity_large() {
    CacheBuilder.newBuilder().initialCapacity(Integer.MAX_VALUE);
    // that the builder didn't blow up is enough;
    // don't actually create this monster!
  }

  public void testConcurrencyLevel_zero() {
    CacheBuilder<Object, Object> builder = CacheBuilder.newBuilder();

  }

  /*
   * Whenever an implementation uses `instanceof` on a parameter instance, the test has to know that
   * (so much for "black box") and try instances that both do and don't pass the check. The "don't"
   * half of that is more awkward to arrange...
   */
  private static <T> Iterable<T> iterable(Collection<T> collection) {
    // return collection::iterator;
    return new Iterable<T>() {

    task.cancel(false);
    assertTrue(task.isDone());
    assertTrue(task.isCancelled());
    assertEquals(1, runLatch.getCount());

    // Wait for the listeners to be called, don't rely on the same-thread exec.
    listenerLatch.await(5, SECONDS);
    assertTrue(task.isDone());
    assertTrue(task.isCancelled());

    // Make sure we didn't run anything.

  @ListFeature.Require(absent = {SUPPORTS_SET, SUPPORTS_ADD_WITH_INDEX})
  public void testListIterator_unmodifiable() {
    runListIteratorTest(UNMODIFIABLE);
  }

  /*
   * For now, we don't cope with testing this when the list supports only some
   * modification operations.
   */
  @CollectionFeature.Require(SUPPORTS_REMOVE)
  @ListFeature.Require({SUPPORTS_SET, SUPPORTS_ADD_WITH_INDEX})

name: Contributor CI Build

on:
  push:
    branches:
      - master
  pull_request:
    branches:
      - master

concurrency:
  # On master/release, we don't want any jobs cancelled so the sha is used to name the group
  group: ${{ (github.ref == 'refs/heads/master' || github.ref == 'refs/heads/release' ) && format('contributor-pr-base-{0}', github.sha) || format('contributor-pr-{0}', github.ref) }}
  cancel-in-progress: false

env:

        };

        // Test each pattern and see what actually works
        for (String cron : potentiallyValidCrons) {
            boolean result = validator.isValid(cron, context);
            // Don't assert true/false here, just test that method doesn't throw
            assertNotNull("Validation should return a boolean result for: " + cron, Boolean.valueOf(result));
        }
    }

  static final String NOT_AVAILABLE_ON_UNDIRECTED =
      "Cannot call source()/target() on a EndpointPair from an undirected graph. Consider calling "
          + "adjacentNode(node) if you already have a node, or nodeU()/nodeV() if you don't.";
  static final String EDGE_ALREADY_EXISTS = "Edge %s already exists in the graph.";
  static final String ENDPOINTS_MISMATCH =
      "Mismatch: endpoints' ordering is not compatible with directionality of the graph";

# Dependencies in path operation decorators { #dependencies-in-path-operation-decorators }

In some cases you don't really need the return value of a dependency inside your *path operation function*.

Or the dependency doesn't return a value.

But you still need it to be executed/solved.

For those cases, instead of declaring a *path operation function* parameter with `Depends`, you can add a `list` of `dependencies` to the *path operation decorator*.