this.useNTSmbs = th.hasCapability(SmbConstants.CAP_NT_SMBS);
        if (!this.useNTSmbs) {
            log.debug("No support for NT SMBs");
        }

        // there seems to be a bug with some servers that causes corruption if using signatures +
        // CAP_LARGE_WRITE
        if (th.hasCapability(SmbConstants.CAP_LARGE_WRITEX) && !th.areSignaturesActive()) {

    // should be reading the byte at index 10.
    // We could use a custom InputStream instead to make the read start at index 10, but since this
    // is a racy situation anyway, this behavior seems reasonable.
    assertEquals(-1, in.read());
  }

  private static class AppendableByteSource extends ByteSource {
    private byte[] bytes;

    AppendableByteSource(byte[] initialBytes) {

    list.set(0, (byte) 4);
    assertThat(newArray).isEqualTo(new byte[] {(byte) 0, (byte) 1, (byte) 2});
    newArray[1] = (byte) 5;
    assertThat((byte) list.get(1)).isEqualTo((byte) 1);
  }

  // This test stems from a real bug found by andrewk
  public void testAsList_subList_toArray_roundTrip() {
    byte[] array = {(byte) 0, (byte) 1, (byte) 2, (byte) 3};
    List<Byte> list = Bytes.asList(array);

     */
    if (throwable instanceof Error) {
      /*
       * TODO(cpovirk): Do we really want to log this if we called setException(throwable) and it
       * returned true? This was intentional (CL 46470009), but it seems odd compared to how we
       * normally handle Error.
       *
       * Similarly, do we really want to log the same Error more than once?
       */
      log(throwable);
    }
  }

        return !Modifier.isStatic(enclosingMethod.getModifiers());
      } else {
        // Strictly, this doesn't necessarily indicate a hidden 'this' in the case of
        // static initializer. But there seems no way to tell in that case. :(
        // This may cause issues when an anonymous class is created inside a static initializer,
        // and the class's constructor's first parameter happens to be the enclosing class.

    list.set(0, (byte) 4);
    assertThat(newArray).isEqualTo(new byte[] {(byte) 0, (byte) 1, (byte) 2});
    newArray[1] = (byte) 5;
    assertThat((byte) list.get(1)).isEqualTo((byte) 1);
  }

  // This test stems from a real bug found by andrewk
  public void testAsList_subList_toArray_roundTrip() {
    byte[] array = {(byte) 0, (byte) 1, (byte) 2, (byte) 3};
    List<Byte> list = Bytes.asList(array);

                this.readSize =
                        Math.min(th.getConfig().getReceiveBufferSize() - 70, th.areSignaturesActive() ? 0xFFFF - 70 : 0xFFFFFF - 70);
            }

            // there seems to be a bug with some servers that causes corruption if using signatures + CAP_LARGE_WRITE
            if (th.hasCapability(SmbConstants.CAP_LARGE_WRITEX) && !th.areSignaturesActive()) {

 * <h3>Comparison to alternatives</h3>
 *
 * <p><b>Note:</b> In some cases the differences explained below can be subtle. When it's unclear
 * which approach to use, <b>don't worry</b> too much about it; just pick something that seems
 * reasonable and it will be fine.
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>If checking whether the <i>caller</i> has violated your method or constructor's contract

    `OAuth2PasswordRequestForm` is that `OAuth2PasswordRequestFormStrict` requires the
    client to send the form field `grant_type` with the value `"password"`, which
    is required in the OAuth2 specification (it seems that for no particular reason),
    while for `OAuth2PasswordRequestForm` `grant_type` is optional.

    Read more about it in the

 * <h3>Comparison to alternatives</h3>
 *
 * <p><b>Note:</b> In some cases the differences explained below can be subtle. When it's unclear
 * which approach to use, <b>don't worry</b> too much about it; just pick something that seems
 * reasonable and it will be fine.
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>If checking whether the <i>caller</i> has violated your method or constructor's contract