assertEquals(option1.getFieldNaming(), option2.getFieldNaming());
    }

    public void test_allMethodsReturnExpectedValues() {
        // Comprehensive test to verify all methods return expected values
        FessJsonResourceProvider testProvider = new FessJsonResourceProvider();

        // Verify nulls suppression is enabled

import jakarta.validation.constraints.Size;

/**
 * Base search form class that extends SearchRequestParams.
 * Provides form fields and methods for handling search requests in the web interface.
 * Contains validation constraints and convenience methods for parameter processing.
 */
public class SearchForm extends SearchRequestParams {

    /**
     * Map of additional search fields with their values.
     */

# Body - Обновления

## Полное обновление с помощью `PUT`

Для полного обновления элемента можно воспользоваться операцией <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Methods/PUT" class="external-link" target="_blank">HTTP `PUT`</a>.

Вы можете использовать функцию `jsonable_encoder` для преобразования входных данных в JSON, так как нередки случаи, когда работать можно только с простыми типами данных (например, для хранения в NoSQL-базе данных).

import java.util.ArrayDeque;
import java.util.Deque;
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.Queue;
import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable;

/**
 * Views elements of a type {@code T} as nodes in a tree, and provides methods to traverse the trees
 * induced by this traverser.
 *
 * <p>For example, the tree
 *
 * {@snippet :
 *        h
 *      / | \
 *     /  e  \
 *    d       g
 *   /|\      |
 *  / | \     f

 *       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},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       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},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       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},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       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},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       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},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code

 *       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},
 *       typically because the type forbids nullable type arguments: For example, {@code