for (String propertyName : new String[] {"value", "absent"}) {
      Method method = null;
      try {
        method = annotationClass.getMethod(propertyName);
      } catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
        throw new AssertionError("Annotation is missing required method", e);
      }
      final Class<?> returnType = method.getReturnType();
      assertTrue(

	}

	// Signature is valid, lets validate the claims for
	// other fields such as expiry etc.
	return claims.Valid()
}

// ParseUnverifiedStandardClaims - WARNING: Don't use this method unless you know what you're doing
//
// This method parses the token but doesn't validate the signature. It's only
// ever useful in cases where you know the signature is valid (because it has

 *       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

    return suite;
  }

  protected Collection<Method> suppressForEmptyList() {
    return emptySet();
  }

  protected Collection<Method> suppressForSingletonList() {
    return emptySet();
  }

  protected Collection<Method> suppressForArraysAsList() {
    return emptySet();
  }

  protected Collection<Method> suppressForArrayList() {
    return emptySet();
  }

 * A {@link BlockingQueue} which forwards all its method calls to another {@link BlockingQueue}.
 * Subclasses should override one or more methods to modify the behavior of the backing collection
 * as desired per the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorator_pattern">decorator
 * pattern</a>.
 *
 * <p><b>{@code default} method warning:</b> This class does <i>not</i> forward calls to {@code

     * The {@linkplain State#TERMINATED TERMINATED} state is a terminal state in the transition
     * diagram. Therefore, if this method is called, no other methods will be called on the {@link
     * Listener}.
     *
     * @param from The previous state that is being transitioned from. Failure can occur in any