* governing permissions and limitations under the License.
 */
package org.codelibs.fess.opensearch.user.exbhv;

import java.util.Map;
import java.util.regex.Pattern;
import java.util.stream.Collectors;

import org.codelibs.core.misc.Pair;
import org.codelibs.fess.opensearch.user.bsbhv.BsGroupBhv;
import org.codelibs.fess.opensearch.user.exentity.Group;
import org.codelibs.fess.util.ComponentUtil;

   * @Nullable X>, then users might pass a TypeParameter<Y>, where Y is a subtype of X, while still
   * passing a TypeToken<X>. This would be invalid. Maybe we could accept a TypeParameter<@PolyNull
   * X> if we support such a thing? It would be weird or misleading for users to be able to pass
   * `new TypeParameter<@Nullable T>() {}` and have it act as a plain `TypeParameter<T>`, but

1. Export existing PodSecurityPolicy objects:
  * `kubectl get podsecuritypolicies -o yaml > psp.yaml`
2. Review and delete any PodSecurityPolicy objects you do not want all pod-creating users to be able to use (NOTE: Privileged users that were making use of those policies will also lose access to those policies). For example:
  * `kubectl delete podsecuritypolicies/my-privileged-policy`
3. After upgrading to 1.5.5, re-create the exported PodSecurityPolicy objects:

<inherits name="com.google.common.base.Base" />
<inherits name="com.google.common.primitives.Primitives" />
<inherits name="com.google.gwt.core.Core" />
<inherits name="com.google.gwt.user.User" />

```JSON
{
    "name": "Foo",
    "description": "The pretender",
    "price": 42.0,
    "tax": 3.2
}
```

Но вы также можете объявить множество параметров тела запроса, например `item` и `user`:

{* ../../docs_src/body_multiple_params/tutorial002_py310.py hl[20] *}

В этом случае **FastAPI** заметит, что в функции есть более одного параметра тела (два параметра, которые являются Pydantic-моделями).

     *       <td>{@code /home/user/myproject/target/classes}</td>
     *       <td>{@code /home/user/myproject/target/classes}</td>
     *       <td>No explicit path → use output directory</td>
     *     </tr>
     *     <tr>
     *       <td>{@code Optional.of(Path.of("META-INF"))}</td>
     *       <td>{@code /home/user/myproject/target/classes}</td>
     *       <td>{@code /home/user/myproject/target/classes/META-INF}</td>

        // Will fail due to null user, but verifies depth check passes
        try {
            authenticator.getParentGroup(null, "test-id", 4);
            // If we reach here without NullPointerException, depth check passed
        } catch (NullPointerException e) {
            // Expected due to null user - depth check passed, processing attempted
            assertTrue(true);

def fake_save_user(user_in: UserIn):
    hashed_password = fake_password_hasher(user_in.password)
    user_in_db = UserInDB(**user_in.model_dump(), hashed_password=hashed_password)
    print("User saved! ..not really")
    return user_in_db


@app.post("/user/", response_model=UserOut)
async def create_user(user_in: UserIn):
    user_saved = fake_save_user(user_in)

 * existing users, but it can't *fix* existing users because any users who needed
 * `Function<@Nullable A, @Nullable B>` already had to find a workaround. Still, there is a *ton* of
 * fallout from trying to switch. I would be shocked if the switch would offer benefits to anywhere
 * near enough users to justify the costs.
 *

    return user_id


# A Pydantic model
class User(BaseModel):
    id: int
    name: str
    joined: date
```

That can then be used like:

```Python
my_user: User = User(id=3, name="John Doe", joined="2018-07-19")

second_user_data = {
    "id": 4,
    "name": "Mary",
    "joined": "2018-11-30",
}

my_second_user: User = User(**second_user_data)
```

/// info