<detectJavaApiLink>false</detectJavaApiLink>
          <offlineLinks>

        - Deprecation
        - Refactoring
        - Other
    validations:
      required: true
  - type: textarea
    id: description
    attributes:
      label: Problem description
      description: |
        Please describe the problem as concisely as possible.
    validations:
      required: true
  - type: textarea
    id: context
    attributes:
      label: Context (optional)
      description: |

**Screenshots**
If applicable, add screenshots to help explain your problem.

**Environment (please complete the following information):**
 - OS: [e.g. Windows 10]
 - Browser [e.g. chrome, safari]
 - Version [e.g. 13.5.0]

**Additional context**

        Provide a [minimal, self-contained example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_reproducible_example) project demonstrating the problem as a GitHub repository or an attached archive.
        You can use [the template](https://github.com/gradle/gradle-issue-reproducer) with a Gradle GitHub action set up to showcase your problem.
        In the rare cases where this is infeasible, we will also accept a detailed set of instructions.

        for (SettingsProblem problem : decrypted.getProblems()) {
            if (problem.getSeverity() == SettingsProblem.Severity.WARNING) {
                logger.warn(problem.getMessage());
            } else if (problem.getSeverity() == SettingsProblem.Severity.ERROR) {
                logger.error(
                        problem.getMessage(),
                        request.isShowErrors()

   * nullness analysis might not understand that the field has been populated. To avoid that problem
   * without having to add {@code @SuppressWarnings}, the code can call this method.
   *
   * <p>Why <i>not</i> just add {@code SuppressWarnings}? The problem is that this method is
   * typically useful for {@code return} statements. That leaves the code with two options: Either

   * nullness analysis might not understand that the field has been populated. To avoid that problem
   * without having to add {@code @SuppressWarnings}, the code can call this method.
   *
   * <p>Why <i>not</i> just add {@code SuppressWarnings}? The problem is that this method is
   * typically useful for {@code return} statements. That leaves the code with two options: Either

            LOGGER.warn("");
            LOGGER.warn("Some problems were encountered while building the effective settings");

            for (SettingsProblem problem : settingsResult.getProblems()) {
                LOGGER.warn("{} @ {}", problem.getMessage(), problem.getLocation());
            }
            LOGGER.warn("");
        }
    }

---
name: Bug report
about: A reproducible problem
title: ''
labels: bug
assignees: ''

---

Good bug reports include a failing test! Writing a test helps you to isolate and describe the problem, and it helps us to fix it fast. Bug reports without a failing test or reproduction steps are likely to be closed.

Here’s an example test to get you started.

                    return defaultModelBuilder.readRawModel(req, problems);
                } catch (ModelBuildingException e) {
                    // gathered with problem collector
                }
                return null;
            }
        };
    }

    private boolean addEdge(Path from, Path p, DefaultModelProblemCollector problems) {
        try {
            dag.addEdge(from.toString(), p.toString());