// System.identityHashCode, which means the assignment of keys to segments is nondeterministic,
    // so more than (maximumSize / #segments) keys could get assigned to the same segment, which
    // would cause one to be evicted.
    return new CacheBuilderFactory()
        .withKeyStrengths(ImmutableSet.of(Strength.STRONG, Strength.WEAK))

    };
    int[] bases = {2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 16};
    for (int base : bases) {
      for (String x : tests) {
        BigInteger xValue = new BigInteger(x, 16);
        long xLong = xValue.longValue(); // signed
        assertThat(UnsignedLongs.toString(xLong, base)).isEqualTo(xValue.toString(base));
      }
    }
  }

  public void testJoin() {
    assertThat(UnsignedLongs.join(",")).isEmpty();

   * @return the greatest value less than {@code value}, or {@code null} if {@code value} is {@code
   *     minValue()}
   */
  public abstract @Nullable C previous(C value);

  /**
   * Returns a signed value indicating how many nested invocations of {@link #next} (if positive) or
   * {@link #previous} (if negative) are needed to reach {@code end} starting from {@code start}.

			metaArr[i] = fi
			parities[i] = parity
			if i < agree {
				continue
			}
			metaArr[i].Erasure.Index = 0 // creates invalid fi on remaining drives
			parities[i] = -1             // invalid fi are assigned parity -1
		}
		res.metaArr = metaArr
		res.parities = parities
		res.errs = make([]error, N)
		if agree >= N-parity {
			res.parity = parity
		} else {
			res.parity = -1
		}

		return res

rn>` is set in the metadata with the timestamp of replication and ResetID. For saving iops, the objects which are re-replicated are not first set to `PENDING` state.

This is a slower operation that does not use replication queues and is designed to walk the namespace and replicate objects one at a time so as not to impede server load. Ideally, resync should not be initiated for multiple buckets simultaneously - progress of the syncing can be monitored by looking at `mc replicate resync status...

This was designed this way mainly to allow using the same objects "yielded" by dependencies inside of background tasks, because the exit code would be executed after the background tasks were finished.

    public static final int SE_GROUP_ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT = 2;
    /** Security group attribute: Group is enabled for use */
    public static final int SE_GROUP_ENABLED = 4;
    /** Security group attribute: Group can be assigned as owner of objects */
    public static final int SE_GROUP_OWNER = 8;
    /** Security group attribute: Group is used for deny-only checks */
    public static final int SE_GROUP_USE_FOR_DENY_ONLY = 16;

    public static final int SE_GROUP_ENABLED_BY_DEFAULT = 2;
    /** Security group attribute: Group is enabled for use */
    public static final int SE_GROUP_ENABLED = 4;
    /** Security group attribute: Group can be assigned as owner of objects */
    public static final int SE_GROUP_OWNER = 8;
    /** Security group attribute: Group is used for deny-only checks */
    public static final int SE_GROUP_USE_FOR_DENY_ONLY = 16;

   *
   * <p>If {@code expectedSize} is exactly the number of entries added to the builder before {@link
   * Builder#build} is called, the builder is likely to perform better than an unsized {@link
   * #builder()} would have.
   *
   * <p>It is not specified if any performance benefits apply if {@code expectedSize} is close to,
   * but not exactly, the number of entries added to the builder.
   *

If you check the previous app, in the UI you can see that, up to now, it lets the client decide the `id` of the `Hero` to create. 😱

We shouldn't let that happen, they could overwrite an `id` we already have assigned in the DB. Deciding the `id` should be done by the **backend** or the **database**, **not by the client**.