ensureRoomFor(n);
      /*
       * The following call is not statically checked, since arraycopy accepts plain Object for its
       * parameters. If it were statically checked, the checker would still be OK with it, since
       * we're copying into a `contents` array whose type allows it to contain nulls. Still, it's
       * worth noting that we promise not to put nulls into the array in the first `size` elements.

        if (method.getDeclaringClass().equals(TypeVariableImpl.class)) {
          try {
            method.setAccessible(true);
          } catch (AccessControlException e) {
            // OK: the method is accessible to us anyway. The setAccessible call is only for
            // unusual execution environments where that might not be true.
          }
          builder.put(method.getName(), method);
        }

              <!-- FeatureUtilTest.*ExampleDerivedInterfaceTester, com.google.common.io.*Tester, incidentally FeatureSpecificTestSuiteBuilderTest.MyAbstractTester (but we don't care either way because it's not meant to run on its own but works OK if it does)... but not NullPointerTesterTest, etc. -->
              <exclude>%regex[.*Tester.class]</exclude>
              <!-- Anonymous TestCase subclasses in GeneratedMonitorTest -->

              <!-- FeatureUtilTest.*ExampleDerivedInterfaceTester, com.google.common.io.*Tester, incidentally FeatureSpecificTestSuiteBuilderTest.MyAbstractTester (but we don't care either way because it's not meant to run on its own but works OK if it does)... but not NullPointerTesterTest, etc. -->
              <exclude>%regex[.*Tester.class]</exclude>
              <!-- Anonymous TestCase subclasses in GeneratedMonitorTest -->

                    if (Constants.TRUE.equalsIgnoreCase(infoMap.get(Constants.CRAWLER_STATUS))) {
                        postcard.setStatus(Constants.OK);
                    } else {
                        postcard.setStatus(Constants.FAIL);
                    }
                    postcard.setJobname(systemProperties.getProperty("job.runtime.name", StringUtil.EMPTY));

  //
  // See: http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-January/013800.html
  // For a (long) discussion about this specific issue and the general futility of life.
  //
  // For the time being we are OK with the problem discussed above since it requires a caller to
  // introduce a very specific kind of data-race. And given the other operations performed by these

    /*
     * These methods "should" call checkNotNull. However, I'm wary of accidentally introducing
     * anything that might slow down execution on such a hot path. Given that the methods are only
     * package-private, I feel OK with just not testing them for NPE.
     *
     * Note that testing casValue is particularly dangerous because it uses Unsafe under some

         * only way to get a TypeVariable instance for the resolved types is to create our own. The
         * created TypeVariable will not interoperate with any JDK TypeVariable. But this is OK: We
         * don't _want_ our new TypeVariable to be equal to the JDK TypeVariable because it has
         * _different bounds_ than the JDK TypeVariable. And it wouldn't make sense for our new

    /*
     * These methods "should" call checkNotNull. However, I'm wary of accidentally introducing
     * anything that might slow down execution on such a hot path. Given that the methods are only
     * package-private, I feel OK with just not testing them for NPE.
     *
     * Note that testing casValue is particularly dangerous because it uses Unsafe under some

        initRepoSession(configuration);

        return projectBuilder.build(pom, allowStub, configuration).getProject();
    }

    /**
     * Check that we can build ok from the middle pom of a (parent,child,grandchild) hierarchy
     */
    @Test
    void testBuildFromMiddlePom() throws Exception {
        File f1 = getTestFile("src/test/resources/projects/grandchild-check/child/pom.xml");