// ClusterTrustBundles by default.  Users who only have namespace-level access
// to a cluster can read ClusterTrustBundles by impersonating a serviceaccount
// that they have access to.
//
// It can be optionally associated with a particular assigner, in which case it
// contains one valid set of trust anchors for that signer. Signers may have

# Extra Models

Continuing with the previous example, it will be common to have more than one related model.

This is especially the case for user models, because:

* The **input model** needs to be able to have a password.
* The **output model** should not have a password.
* The **database model** would probably need to have a hashed password.

!!! danger
    Never store user's plaintext passwords. Always store a "secure hash" that you can then verify.

  /*
   * Ideally, this class would have exposed only constructors that require a non-null cause. See
   * https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify-reference-checker/blob/61aafa4ae52594830cfc2d61c8b113009dbdb045/src/main/java/com/google/jspecify/nullness/NullSpecTransfer.java#L789
   * and https://github.com/jspecify/jspecify/issues/490.
   *
   * (Perhaps it should also have required that its cause was a RuntimeException. However, that

import java.lang.reflect.Method;
import java.util.Locale;
import junit.framework.TestCase;

/**
 * Since annotations have some reusability issues that force copy and paste all over the place, it's
 * worth having a test to ensure that all our Feature enums have their annotations correctly set up.
 *
 * @author George van den Driessche
 */
public class FeatureEnumTest extends TestCase {

* Maven test harness for plugin execution model
* Eclipse IDE tooling for plugin execution model and metadata model

- we also seem to have information like the plugin lifecycle model that's buried inside the maven execution model
- we also seem to have artifact information tangled inside the plugin model
- we have to deal with scripting implementations (groovy, beanshell, ruby)
- we need to deal with a shared context for plugins, like the guarded mojos

Do you want to have an `id` and `email` and not have any `username` in your model? Sure. You can use these same tools.

Do you want to just have a `str`? Or just a `dict`? Or a database class model instance directly? It all works the same way.

You actually don't have users that log in to your application but robots, bots, or other systems, that have just an access token? Again, it all works the same.

//   "format": "XXXXX",
//   "XXXXX": {
//
//   }
// }
// Here "XXXXX" depends on the backend, currently we have "fs" and "xl" implementations.
// formatMetaV1 should be inherited by backend format structs. Please look at format-fs.go
// and format-xl.go for details.

// Ideally we will never have a situation where we will have to change the
// fields of this struct and deal with related migration.
type formatMetaV1 struct {

Then you could want to have **a single container** with a **process manager** starting **several worker processes** inside.

#### Prometheus and Other Reasons

-->
Contributing to Apache Maven
======================

You have found a bug or you have an idea for a cool new feature? Contributing
code is a great way to give something back to the open source community. Before
you dig right into the code, there are a few guidelines that we need
contributors to follow so that we can have a chance of keeping on top of
things.

In this case, it would be better to get **one extra server** and run some processes on it so that they all have **enough RAM and CPU time**.

There's also the chance that for some reason you have a **spike** of usage of your API. Maybe it went viral, or maybe some other services or bots start using it. And you might want to have extra resources to be safe in those cases.