feat(bigquerycontrol): generate library #14440
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #14440 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 93.59% 93.59%
=======================================
Files 2315 2315
Lines 207150 207150
=======================================
+ Hits 193876 193880 +4
+ Misses 13274 13270 -4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| # BigQueryControl | ||
| service { | ||
| service_proto_path: "google/cloud/bigquery/v2/dataset.proto" | ||
| product_path: "google/cloud/bigquerycontrol/dataset/v2" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For all of these, why not google/cloud/bigquerycontrol/v2 ?
It seems simpler and less verbose to me.
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
| - [Cloud BigQuery Control API](/google/cloud/bigquerycontrol/README.md) - | ||
| This library provides support for the Dataset, Job, Model, Project, Routine, RowAccessPolicy, and Table REST resources. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: can you align this to 80 characters?
We turned off mdformat-ing the changelog because I didn't like how some things were rendered in GH's release notes.
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
| @@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ added to your `.bazelrc` file. | |||
| build --@io_opentelemetry_cpp//api:with_abseil | |||
| ``` | |||
|
|
|||
| ### New Libraries | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: move this section above OpenTelemetry ?
|
|
||
| \[cloud-service-docs\]: https://cloud.google.com/bigquerycontrol \[EDIT HERE\] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
comment: Weird. I guess when a service doesn't have that product documentation field in the yaml, we get an [EDIT HERE] marker which confuses checkers.
| set(DOXYGEN_PROJECT_NAME "Cloud BigQuery Control API C++ Client") | ||
| set(DOXYGEN_PROJECT_BRIEF | ||
| "A C++ Client Library for the Cloud BigQuery Control API") | ||
| set(DOXYGEN_PROJECT_NUMBER "${PROJECT_VERSION}") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
comment: we used to add (Experimental)...
google-cloud-cpp/cmake/GoogleCloudCppLibrary.cmake
Lines 175 to 176 in d43e267
... but honestly, I don't think this field makes it to cloud.google.com/cpp. I think it is a relic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 215 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dbolduc)
a discussion (no related file):
Previously, dbolduc (Darren Bolduc) wrote…
(Reviewable was unable to map this GitHub inline comment thread to the right spot — sorry!)
For all of these, why not
google/cloud/bigquerycontrol/v2?It seems simpler and less verbose to me.
The google/cloud/<product>/<service>/<version> format is the convention we've been using in the rest of the repo, so I followed that.: e.g. google/cloud/bigquery/storage/v1. It is possible that versions of each service could change independently.
CHANGELOG.md line 35 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, dbolduc (Darren Bolduc) wrote…
nit: move this section above OpenTelemetry ?
Done
CHANGELOG.md line 40 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, dbolduc (Darren Bolduc) wrote…
nit: can you align this to 80 characters?
We turned off
mdformat-ing the changelog because I didn't like how some things were rendered in GH's release notes.
Done
google/cloud/bigquerycontrol/CMakeLists.txt line 23 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, dbolduc (Darren Bolduc) wrote…
comment: we used to add
(Experimental)...google-cloud-cpp/cmake/GoogleCloudCppLibrary.cmake
Lines 175 to 176 in d43e267
... but honestly, I don't think this field makes it to cloud.google.com/cpp. I think it is a relic.
Added in case we decide we want it.
google/cloud/bigquerycontrol/README.md line 0 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, dbolduc (Darren Bolduc) wrote…
(Reviewable was unable to map this GitHub inline comment thread to the right spot — sorry!)
comment: Weird. I guess when a service doesn't have that product documentation field in the yaml, we get an
[EDIT HERE]marker which confusescheckers.
Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 215 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @scotthart)
a discussion (no related file):
google/cloud/<product>/<service>/<version>format is the convention we've been using in the rest of the repo
I don't think so. That is the convention the BigQuery service was using, but they changed it with these v2 protos.
I would think of it as mapping:
google/cloud/bigquery/ in googleapis to google/cloud/bigquery/ in google-cloud-cpp.
https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/tree/master/google/cloud/bigquery
If these were gRPC services, we would have put them in our google/cloud/bigquery/v2.
But we can't. So we should map google/cloud/bigquery in googleapis to google/cloud/bigquerycontrol in google-cloud-cpp for the REST based services.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 215 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @dbolduc)
a discussion (no related file):
Previously, dbolduc (Darren Bolduc) wrote…
google/cloud/<product>/<service>/<version>format is the convention we've been using in the rest of the repoI don't think so. That is the convention the BigQuery service was using, but they changed it with these v2 protos.
I would think of it as mapping:
google/cloud/bigquery/in googleapis togoogle/cloud/bigquery/in google-cloud-cpp.https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/tree/master/google/cloud/bigquery
If these were gRPC services, we would have put them in our
google/cloud/bigquery/v2.But we can't. So we should map
google/cloud/bigqueryin googleapis togoogle/cloud/bigquerycontrolin google-cloud-cpp for the REST based services.
Ok, I'm convinced. I'll likely create a new PR as this will be a large structural change.
|
superceded by #14449 |
This change is