[CertificatePinningJava]: https://github.com/square/okhttp/blob/master/samples/guide/src/main/java/okhttp3/recipes/CertificatePinning.java
 [CertificatePinningKotlin]: https://github.com/square/okhttp/blob/master/samples/guide/src/main/java/okhttp3/recipes/kt/CertificatePinning.kt
 [provider_installer]: https://developer.android.com/training/articles/security-gms-provider

  }

  protected final E e0() {
    return samples.e0();
  }

  protected final E e1() {
    return samples.e1();
  }

  protected final E e2() {
    return samples.e2();
  }

  protected final E e3() {
    return samples.e3();
  }

  protected final E e4() {
    return samples.e4();
  }

import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Map.Entry;
import java.util.Set;
import org.jspecify.annotations.NullMarked;
import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable;

/**
 * Creates map entries using sample keys and sample values.
 *
 * @author Jesse Wilson
 */
@GwtCompatible
@NullMarked
public abstract class TestMapEntrySetGenerator<
        K extends @Nullable Object, V extends @Nullable Object>

## Custom Operation IDs and Better Method Names { #custom-operation-ids-and-better-method-names }

You can **modify** the way these operation IDs are **generated** to make them simpler and have **simpler method names** in the clients.

In this case, you will have to ensure that each operation ID is **unique** in some other way.

When you check the benchmarks, it is common to see several tools of different types compared as equivalent.

Specifically, to see Uvicorn, Starlette and FastAPI compared together (among many other tools).

The simpler the problem solved by the tool, the better performance it will get. And most of the benchmarks don't test the additional features provided by the tool.

The hierarchy is like:

* **Uvicorn**: an ASGI server

  }

  protected final E e0() {
    return samples.e0();
  }

  protected final E e1() {
    return samples.e1();
  }

  protected final E e2() {
    return samples.e2();
  }

  protected final E e3() {
    return samples.e3();
  }

  protected final E e4() {
    return samples.e4();
  }

/**
 * Creates collections containing unhashable sample elements, to be tested.
 *
 * @author Regina O'Dell
 */
@GwtCompatible
@NullMarked
public abstract class TestUnhashableCollectionGenerator<T extends Collection<UnhashableObject>>
    implements TestCollectionGenerator<UnhashableObject> {
  @Override
  public SampleElements<UnhashableObject> samples() {
    return new Unhashables();
  }

  @Override

		parities []int
		parity   int
	}{
		// More than simple majority consensus
		mkTest(15, 3, 11),
		// No simple majority consensus
		mkTest(15, 3, 7),
		// Exact simple majority consensus
		mkTest(15, 3, 8),
		// More than simple majority consensus
		mkTest(16, 4, 11),
		// No simple majority consensus
		mkTest(16, 4, 8),
		// Exact simple majority consensus
		mkTest(16, 4, 9),

     * initial thread's.
     */
    Set<Throwable> seenExceptionsLocal = seenExceptionsField;
    if (seenExceptionsLocal == null) {
      // TODO(cpovirk): Should we use a simpler (presumably cheaper) data structure?
      /*
       * Using weak references here could let us release exceptions earlier, but:
       *

## Simple HTTP Basic Auth { #simple-http-basic-auth }

* Import `HTTPBasic` and `HTTPBasicCredentials`.
* Create a "`security` scheme" using `HTTPBasic`.
* Use that `security` with a dependency in your *path operation*.
* It returns an object of type `HTTPBasicCredentials`:
    * It contains the `username` and `password` sent.