doc(bigtable): create page for configuration options

[coryan]

This change is 

[google-cloud-cpp-bot]

Google Cloud Build Logs
For commit: 38b7fb107e83cee77fed78b0c4c53469fcba9b6f

• Public Access Build Logs
• Cloud Build Console (requires auth)
• Kokoro Logs (requires auth)

ℹ️ NOTE: Kokoro logs are linked from "Details" below.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 93.98% // Head: 93.97% // Decreases project coverage by -0.00% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (38b7fb1) compared to base (fe8f7eb).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10197      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.98%   93.97%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1531     1531              
  Lines      141068   141068              
==========================================
- Hits       132584   132573      -11     
- Misses       8484     8495      +11     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...bigtable/examples/bigtable_hello_instance_admin.cc	81.00% <0.00%> (-2.00%)	⬇️
...cloud/pubsub/internal/subscription_session_test.cc	97.82% <0.00%> (-1.18%)	⬇️
...ud/spanner/integration_tests/client_stress_test.cc	84.21% <0.00%> (-0.66%)	⬇️
...le/cloud/internal/default_completion_queue_impl.cc	96.59% <0.00%> (-0.57%)	⬇️
google/cloud/storage/parallel_upload.cc	98.28% <0.00%> (-0.35%)	⬇️
google/cloud/completion_queue_test.cc	97.13% <0.00%> (-0.20%)	⬇️
google/cloud/pubsub/samples/samples.cc	90.70% <0.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
...le/cloud/storage/internal/curl_download_request.cc	89.29% <0.00%> (+1.00%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[dbolduc]

Should we be adding the OptionList<>s? Have they fallen out of favor?

[dbolduc]

every generated service has an equivalent of this option too. Will they all get these *-options.dox?

[coryan]

I would like to, yes, but I did the hand-crafted libraries first.

[coryan]

Should we be adding the OptionList<>s? Have they fallen out of favor?

I am not sure why customers would care for them. AFAIK they are only used to implement some checks, and probably should not be in the public namespace. I have no idea if we should remove them, move them to *_internal. Until we decide, we should leave them undocumented (created #10206) to track.

[dbolduc]

Ack. I think the OptionList<>s were also added for discoverability of Options.

google-cloud-cpp/google/cloud/accessapproval/access_approval_connection.h

Lines 118 to 125 in 3baceac

	* The optional @p options argument may be used to configure aspects of the
	* returned `AccessApprovalConnection`. Expected options are any of the types in
	* the following option lists:
	*
	* - `google::cloud::CommonOptionList`
	* - `google::cloud::GrpcOptionList`
	* - `google::cloud::UnifiedCredentialsOptionList`
	* - `google::cloud::accessapproval::AccessApprovalPolicyOptionList`

But these doxygen ref groups probably do a better job.