assertEquals(0, c.getDeclaredMethods().length, "No declared methods expected");
        assertEquals(0, c.getDeclaredConstructors().length, "Interfaces have no constructors");
    }

    @Test
    @DisplayName("Fields are public static final Strings with expected values")
    void fieldModifiersAndTypes() throws Exception {

                    EmptyIterator iterator3 = new EmptyIterator()) {
                assertFalse(iterator1.hasNext(), "First instance should have no elements");
                assertFalse(iterator2.hasNext(), "Second instance should have no elements");
                assertFalse(iterator3.hasNext(), "Third instance should have no elements");

                assertNull(iterator1.next(), "First instance next() should return null");

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       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},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       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},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       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},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       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},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       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},

 *       String}.
 *   <li>{@code getElement} on a {@code Multiset.Entry<@Nullable String>} returns {@code @Nullable
 *       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},

    tests, either. This causes it to fail to find AtomicLongMapTest.

    Our workaround is to tell GWT that util.concurrent and all other packages
    have prod supersource, even if they have none. GWT is happy to ignore us
    when we specify a nonexistent path.

    (I hope that this workaround does not cause its own problems in the future.)
-->
<super-source path="super"/>

If you want to secure your API, there are several better things you can do, for example:

* Make sure you have well defined Pydantic models for your request bodies and responses.
* Configure any required permissions and roles using dependencies.
* Never store plaintext passwords, only password hashes.