double actualReportedFpp = bf.expectedFpp();
    assertThat(actualReportedFpp).isWithin(0.00033).of(expectedReportedFpp);
  }

  /** Sanity checking with many combinations of false positive rates and expected insertions */
  public void testBasic() {
    for (double fpr = 0.0000001; fpr < 0.1; fpr *= 10) {

            int readWrite = ACE.FILE_READ_DATA | ACE.FILE_WRITE_DATA;
            assertEquals(0x00000003, readWrite, "Combined read/write should be 0x00000003");

            // Test checking individual bits
            assertTrue((readWrite & ACE.FILE_READ_DATA) != 0, "Should contain FILE_READ_DATA bit");
            assertTrue((readWrite & ACE.FILE_WRITE_DATA) != 0, "Should contain FILE_WRITE_DATA bit");

import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable;

/**
 * The {@code CycleDetectingLockFactory} creates {@link ReentrantLock} instances and {@link
 * ReentrantReadWriteLock} instances that detect potential deadlock by checking for cycles in lock
 * acquisition order.
 *
 * <p>Potential deadlocks detected when calling the {@code lock()}, {@code lockInterruptibly()}, or

  @GwtIncompatible // suite
  @AndroidIncompatible // test-suite builders
  public static Test suite() {
    TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
    // TODO(lowasser): should we force TreeMultimap to be more thorough about checking nulls?
    suite.addTest(
        SortedSetMultimapTestSuiteBuilder.using(
                new TestStringSetMultimapGenerator() {
                  @Override

          /*
           * We'll accept that as sufficient "proof" that either equivalence should be able to
           * handle either reference, so it's safe to circumvent compile-time type checking.
           */
          @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
          Equivalence<Object> equivalence = (Equivalence<Object>) this.equivalence;
          return equivalence.equivalent(this.reference, that.reference);

* Don't worry too much about things like commit message styles, I will squash and merge customizing the commit manually.

* Also don't worry about style rules, there are already automatized tools checking that.

And if there's any other style or consistency need, I'll ask directly for that, or I'll add commits on top with the needed changes.

### Check the code { #check-the-code }

                        if (file.exists()) {
                            results.add(file);
                        }
                    } catch (IOException e) {
                        log.debug("Error checking existence of: " + path, e);
                    }
                }
            }
        }
        
        return results;
    }
}
```

### 7.2 Hierarchical Cache Management
```java

    /**
     * Default constructor for SearchLogHelper.
     */
    public SearchLogHelper() {
        // Default constructor
    }

    /** Interval for checking user information in milliseconds (default: 10 minutes). */
    protected long userCheckInterval = 10 * 60 * 1000L; // 10 min

    /** Maximum size of the user information cache. */
    protected int userInfoCacheSize = 10000;

    double actualReportedFpp = bf.expectedFpp();
    assertThat(actualReportedFpp).isWithin(0.00033).of(expectedReportedFpp);
  }

  /** Sanity checking with many combinations of false positive rates and expected insertions */
  public void testBasic() {
    for (double fpr = 0.0000001; fpr < 0.1; fpr *= 10) {

MINIO_IDENTITY_OPENID_VENDOR                (string)    Specify vendor type for vendor specific behavior to checking validity of temporary credentials and service accounts on MinIO
MINIO_IDENTITY_OPENID_CLAIM_USERINFO        (on|off)    Enable fetching claims from UserInfo Endpoint for authenticated user