We expect you to follow up on review comments somewhat promptly, but recognise
that everyone has many priorities for their time and may not be able to respond
for several days. We will understand if you find yourself without the time to
complete your contribution, but please let us know that you have stopped
working on it. We will try to send you a reminder if we haven't heard from you
in a while, but may end up closing your PR if you do not respond for too long.

2. **Thoughtful, honest feedback.** We will consider every contribution on its merits, regardless of whether AI was used. We may not respond quickly—our review queue is long—but we will tell you clearly what works, what needs to change, and why.

				}
				var i int
				var eprefix string
				for i, eprefix = range tc.excludedPrefixes {
					if eprefix != v.ExcludedPrefixes[i].Prefix {
						mismatch = true
						break
					}
				}
				if mismatch {

 *       are called <i>cryptographic hash functions</i>. But, whenever it is learned that either of
 *       these feats has become computationally feasible, the function is deemed "broken" and should
 *       no longer be used for secure purposes. (This is the likely eventual fate of <i>all</i>
 *       cryptographic hashes.)
 *   <li><b>fast:</b> perhaps self-explanatory, but often the most important consideration.
 * </ul>
 *

    }
    expectUnchanged();
  }

  @MapFeature.Require(absent = SUPPORTS_PUT)
  public void testReplaceEntry_unsupportedAbsentKey() {
    try {
      getMap().replace(k3(), v3(), v4());
    } catch (UnsupportedOperationException tolerated) {
      // the operation would be a no-op, so exceptions are allowed but not required
    }
    expectUnchanged();

    }
    expectUnchanged();
  }

  @MapFeature.Require(absent = SUPPORTS_PUT)
  public void testReplaceEntry_unsupportedAbsentKey() {
    try {
      getMap().replace(k3(), v3(), v4());
    } catch (UnsupportedOperationException tolerated) {
      // the operation would be a no-op, so exceptions are allowed but not required
    }
    expectUnchanged();

		if rec.Code != testCase.expectedRespStatus {
			t.Errorf("Test %d: %s: Expected the response status to be `%d`, but instead found `%d`", i+1, instanceType, testCase.expectedRespStatus, rec.Code)
		}
		if !bytes.Equal(testCase.locationResponse, rec.Body.Bytes()) && testCase.shouldPass {
			t.Errorf("Test %d: %s: Expected the response to be `%s`, but instead found `%s`", i+1, instanceType, string(testCase.locationResponse), rec.Body.String())
		}

 * annotated with LargeTest.
 *
 * <p>Why use a custom annotation instead of {@code android.test.suitebuilder.annotation.Suppress}?
 * I'm not completely sure that this is the right choice, but it has various advantages:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>An annotation named just "Suppress" might someday be treated by a non-Android tool as a

			},
			ondisk: true,
		},
		{
			// restore completed but expired
			meta: map[string]string{
				xhttp.AmzRestore: completedRestoreObj(time.Now().Add(-time.Hour)).String(),
			},
			ondisk: false,
		},
	}

	for i, tc := range testCases {
		if actual := isRestoredObjectOnDisk(tc.meta); actual != tc.ondisk {
			t.Fatalf("Test %d: expected %v but got %v for %v", i+1, tc.ondisk, actual, tc.meta)
		}
	}
}

	n, err := w.Write([]byte("abcd"))
	w.Close()
	if err != nil {
		t.Errorf("DeadlineWriter should succeed but failed with %s", err)
	}
	if n != 4 {
		t.Errorf("DeadlineWriter should succeed but should have only written 4 bytes, but returned %d instead", n)
	}
}

func TestCloseOnWriter(t *testing.T) {
	writer := WriteOnClose(io.Discard)
	if writer.HasWritten() {