throw new SkipThisScenarioException();
    }
  }

  // This exclusion doesn't exclude the TOMBSTONE objects we set. So 'done' NEW futures will look
  // larger than they are.
  @SuppressWarnings("FutureReturnValueIgnored")
  @Footprint(exclude = {Runnable.class, Executor.class, Thread.class, Exception.class})
  public Object measureSize() {
    for (Thread thread : blockedThreads) {

import org.apache.maven.api.model.RepositoryBase;
import org.apache.maven.api.model.Scm;
import org.apache.maven.api.model.Site;
import org.apache.maven.model.v4.MavenMerger;

/**
 * The domain-specific model merger for the Maven POM, overriding generic code from parent class when necessary with
 * more adapted algorithms.
 *
 */
public class MavenModelMerger extends MavenMerger {

    /**

        for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
          array[i] = counter.getAndIncrement();
        }
        builder.addAll(ImmutableIntArray.copyOf(array));
      }
    },
    ADD_LARGER_ARRAY {
      @Override
      void doIt(ImmutableIntArray.Builder builder, AtomicInteger counter) {
        int[] array = new int[RANDOM.nextInt(200) + 200];
        for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {

   * Returns an immutable array containing the same values as {@code this} array. This is logically
   * a no-op, and in some circumstances {@code this} itself is returned. However, if this instance
   * is a {@link #subArray} view of a larger array, this method will copy only the appropriate range
   * of values, resulting in an equivalent array with a smaller memory footprint.
   */
  public ImmutableLongArray trimmed() {

              || !fitsInInt(BigIntegerMath.binomial(IntMath.biggestBinomials[k] + 1, k)));
      // In the first case, any int is valid; in the second, we want to test that the next-bigger
      // int overflows.
    }
    assertFalse(
        fitsInInt(
            BigIntegerMath.binomial(
                2 * IntMath.biggestBinomials.length, IntMath.biggestBinomials.length)));
  }

     * including in MapRetrievalCache, so I'm not sure why this one is different. I did at least
     * confirm that my change to MapIteratorCache fixes the TSAN error in the (larger) test it was
     * originally reported in.
     */
    for (Future<?> future : futures.build()) {
      future.get();
    }
    executor.shutdown();
  }

     * including in MapRetrievalCache, so I'm not sure why this one is different. I did at least
     * confirm that my change to MapIteratorCache fixes the TSAN error in the (larger) test it was
     * originally reported in.
     */
    for (Future<?> future : futures.build()) {
      future.get();
    }
    executor.shutdown();
  }

 *
 * <p>Unlike {@code java.util.HashMap}, iteration is only proportional to the actual {@code size()},
 * which is optimal, and <i>not</i> the size of the internal hashtable, which could be much larger
 * than {@code size()}. Furthermore, this structure places significantly reduced load on the garbage
 * collector by only using a constant number of internal objects.
 *

    checkHashCode(Sets.cartesianProduct(set(1, num), set(2, num - 1)));
    checkHashCode(Sets.cartesianProduct(set(1, num), set(2, num - 1), set(3, num + 1)));

    // a bigger one
    checkHashCode(
        Sets.cartesianProduct(set(1, num, num + 1), set(2), set(3, num + 2), set(4, 5, 6, 7, 8)));
  }

  public void testPowerSetEmpty() {

          "nesec--nx??at?b?c!cul??dv?i&blo&-oipmet?oipmet??cserb?drabmol?g&gof?urep??l&gup?i&cis?me&-oigger?oigger???uig&-&aizenev&-iluirf?iluirf??ev&-iluirf?iluirf??v&-iluirf?iluirf???aizenev&-iluirf?iluirf??ev&-iluirf?iluirf??v&-iluirf?iluirf????n&a&brev?cul?pmac?tac??idras?obrac&-saiselgi?saiselgi??resi??otsip?r&b&alac!-oigger?oigger??mu??dna&-&attelrab-inart?inart-attelrab??attelrabinart?inartattelrab?ssela??epmi?ugil??tnelav&-obiv?obiv??vap?z&e&nev?ps&-al?al???...