This client could be a browser with a frontend, a code from someone else, an IoT device, etc.

You could need to tell the client that:

* The client doesn't have enough privileges for that operation.
* The client doesn't have access to that resource.
* The item the client was trying to access doesn't exist.
* etc.

    * And validators allow complex data schemas to be clearly and easily defined, checked and documented as JSON Schema.
    * You can have deeply **nested JSON** objects and have them all validated and annotated.
* **Extensible**:
    * Pydantic allows custom data types to be defined or you can extend validation with methods on a model decorated with the validator decorator.

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       String}.
 * </ul>
 *
 * This is the same behavior as type-variable usages have to Kotlin and to the Checker Framework.
 * Contrast the method above to:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>methods whose return type is a type variable but which can never return {@code null},

    tests, either. This causes it to fail to find AtomicLongMapTest.

    Our workaround is to tell GWT that util.concurrent and all other packages
    have prod supersource, even if they have none. GWT is happy to ignore us
    when we specify a nonexistent path.

    (I hope that this workaround does not cause its own problems in the future.)
-->
<super-source path="super"/>

    tests, either. This causes it to fail to find AtomicLongMapTest.

    Our workaround is to tell GWT that util.concurrent and all other packages
    have prod supersource, even if they have none. GWT is happy to ignore us
    when we specify a nonexistent path.

    (I hope that this workaround does not cause its own problems in the future.)
-->
<super-source path="super"/>