* specific language governing permissions and limitations
 * under the License.
 */
package org.apache.maven.lifecycle;

/**
 * Signals a failure to execute a lifecycle phase or mojo because a project is required but not present.
 *
 */
public class MissingProjectException extends Exception {

    /**
     * Creates a new exception.
     *
     * @param message The detail message, may be {@code null}.

 */

package gradlebuild.buildutils.tasks

import org.gradle.api.GradleException
import org.gradle.api.tasks.TaskAction
import org.gradle.work.DisableCachingByDefault


@DisableCachingByDefault(because = "Not worth caching")
abstract class CheckSubprojectsInfo : SubprojectsInfo() {

    @TaskAction
    fun checkSubprojectsInfo() {
        if (subprojectsJson.asFile.readText() != generateSubprojectsJson()) {

# ==============================================================================
# Sourcing this enables local disk cache
if [[ $(uname -s) == "Darwin" ]]; then
  echo "Please note that using disk cache on macOS is not recommended because the"
  echo "cache can end up being pretty big and make the build process inefficient."
fi

   * *J2CL* doesn't look at it.)
   *
   * However, once it's a @JsMethod, GWT produces a warning. That's because (a) the *other* purpose
   * of @JsMethod is to make a method *callable* from JavaScript and (b) this method would not be
   * useful to call from vanilla JavaScript because it returns an instance of Class, which can't be
   * converted to a standard JavaScript type. (Contrast to something like String or boolean.) Since

      int jellyBean =
          (int) Class.forName("android.os.Build$VERSION_CODES").getField("JELLY_BEAN").get(null);
      /*
       * I assume that this check can't fail because JELLY_BEAN will be present only if we're
       * running under Jelly Bean or higher. But it seems safest to check.
       */
      if (version < jellyBean) {
        return new ThrowingCreator();
      }

 * Unit test for {@link Resources}.
 *
 * @author Chris Nokleberg
 */

@NullUnmarked
public class ResourcesTest extends IoTestCase {

  @AndroidIncompatible // wouldn't run anyway, but strip the source entirely because of b/230620681
  public static TestSuite suite() {
    TestSuite suite = new TestSuite();
    suite.addTest(
        ByteSourceTester.tests(

func (l *lockRESTServer) UnlockHandler(args *dsync.LockArgs) (*dsync.LockResp, *grid.RemoteErr) {
	resp := lockRPCUnlock.NewResponse()
	_, err := l.ll.Unlock(context.Background(), *args)
	// Ignore the Unlock() "reply" return value because if err == nil, "reply" is always true
	// Consequently, if err != nil, reply is always false
	return l.makeResp(resp, err)
}

// RLockHandler - Acquires an RLock.

    public T get() {
      // Because Supplier is read-heavy, we use the "double-checked locking" pattern.
      if (delegate != null) {
        synchronized (lock) {
          if (delegate != null) {
            T t = delegate.get();
            value = t;
            delegate = null;
            return t;
          }
        }
      }
      // This is safe because we checked `delegate`.

        // this configuration is on fess_env.properties because this is true only when development
        direction.directDevelopmentHere(fessConfig.isDevelopmentHere());

        // titles of the application for logging are from configurations
        direction.directLoggingTitle(fessConfig.getDomainTitle(), fessConfig.getEnvironmentTitle());

        // this configuration is on sea_env.properties because it has no influence to production

 * </pre>
 *
 * the access check would fail because the direct ACE has an access mask
 * of <code>0x001200A9</code> which doesn't have the
 * <code>FILE_WRITE_DATA</code> bit on (bit <code>0x00000002</code>). Actually, this isn't quite correct. If
 * <code>WNET\alice</code> is in the local <code>Administrators</code> group the access check
 * will succeed because the inherited ACE allows local <code>Administrators</code>