*
     * @param netName the network name of the share
     * @param type the type of the share
     * @param remark the descriptive comment about the share
     */
    public SmbShareInfo(final String netName, final int type, final String remark) {
        this.netName = netName;
        this.type = type;
        this.remark = remark;
    }

    @Override
    public String getName() {

        boolean hasFile = false;
        for (final ProtocolType type : values) {
            if (type == ProtocolType.WEB) {
                hasWeb = true;
            } else if (type == ProtocolType.FILE) {
                hasFile = true;
            }
        }

        assertTrue("Should have WEB protocol type", hasWeb);
        assertTrue("Should have FILE protocol type", hasFile);
    }

    // Test ProtocolType valueOf

pkg go/doc/comment, type DocLink struct, Name string #51082
pkg go/doc/comment, type DocLink struct, Recv string #51082
pkg go/doc/comment, type DocLink struct, Text []Text #51082
pkg go/doc/comment, type Heading struct #51082
pkg go/doc/comment, type Heading struct, Text []Text #51082
pkg go/doc/comment, type Italic string #51082
pkg go/doc/comment, type Link struct #51082
pkg go/doc/comment, type Link struct, Auto bool #51082

	has       RelationshipType = "has"
)

type Relationships struct {
	HasOne    []*Relationship
	BelongsTo []*Relationship
	HasMany   []*Relationship
	Many2Many []*Relationship
	Relations map[string]*Relationship

	EmbeddedRelations map[string]*Relationships

	Mux sync.RWMutex
}

type Relationship struct {
	Name                     string
	Type                     RelationshipType

 *       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