assertThat(peeker.getDone(input1)).isSameInstanceAs("value1");
                  try {
                    peeker.getDone(input2Failed);
                    fail("Peeker.getDone() should fail for failed inputs");
                  } catch (ExecutionException expected) {
                  }
                  try {
                    peeker.getDone(nonInput);

		srcPath     string
		expectedErr error
	}{
		// TestXLStorage case - 1.
		// TestXLStorage case with valid inputs, expected to pass.
		{
			srcVol:      "success-vol",
			srcPath:     "success-file",
			expectedErr: nil,
		},
		// TestXLStorage case - 2.
		// TestXLStorage case with valid inputs, expected to pass.
		{
			srcVol:      "success-vol",
			srcPath:     "path/to/success-file",

		}
	}

	// test cases with inputs and expected result for GetBucketPolicyHandler.
	testCases := []struct {
		bucketName string
		accessKey  string
		secretKey  string
		// expected output.
		expectedBucketPolicy string
		expectedRespStatus   int
	}{
		// Test case - 1.
		// Case which valid inputs, expected to return success status of 200OK.
		{

                  assertThat(peeker.getDone(input1)).isSameInstanceAs("value1");
                  try {
                    peeker.getDone(input2Failed);
                    fail("Peeker.getDone() should fail for failed inputs");
                  } catch (ExecutionException expected) {
                  }
                  try {
                    peeker.getDone(nonInput);

   * @return the count of the element before the operation; possibly zero
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code occurrences} is negative
   */
  /*
   * TODO(cpovirk): remove and removeExactly currently accept null inputs only
   * if occurrences == 0. This satisfies both NullPointerTester and
   * CollectionRemoveTester.testRemove_nullAllowed, but it's not clear that it's
   * a good policy, especially because, in order for the test to pass, the

   * single-threaded.
   */
  @GwtIncompatible // GWT is single threaded
  public void testCopyOf_threadSafe() {
    /*
     * The actual collections that we pass as inputs will be wrappers around these, so
     * ImmutableSet.copyOf won't short-circuit because it won't see an ImmutableSet input.
     */
    ImmutableList<ImmutableSet<String>> distinctCandidatesByAscendingSize =

        doThrow(new AssertionError("ensureOpen should not be called")).when(raf).ensureOpen();
        raf.write(new byte[1], 0, 0);
    }

    @Test
    @DisplayName("Null inputs: read(byte[]) and write* with nulls throw NPE")
    void nullInputs_throwNPE() throws Exception {
        SmbRandomAccessFile raf = newInstance("rw", false, true, false);

   * @return the count of the element before the operation; possibly zero
   * @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code occurrences} is negative
   */
  /*
   * TODO(cpovirk): remove and removeExactly currently accept null inputs only
   * if occurrences == 0. This satisfies both NullPointerTester and
   * CollectionRemoveTester.testRemove_nullAllowed, but it's not clear that it's
   * a good policy, especially because, in order for the test to pass, the

        //
        // Builder, concurrency and parallelism
        //
        // We preserve the existing methods for builder selection which is to look for various inputs in the threading
        // configuration. We don't have an easy way to allow a pluggable builder to provide its own configuration

        // Simple KDF implementation (should be replaced with proper KDF like HKDF)
        // This is a placeholder - real implementation should use proper KDF
        byte[] derived = new byte[length];

        // Combine inputs
        byte[] labelBytes = label.getBytes(java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets.UTF_8);
        byte[] input = new byte[baseKey.length + labelBytes.length + (context != null ? context.length : 0)];

        int pos = 0;