Outdated usage of entries.list API request

[frankyn]

Issue: In the logging/service.rb file, an deprecated fieldName (projectIds) of entries.list API is being used.

https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/google-cloud-ruby/blob/2d6c92137152d5297e91e1b5c336ed94b5ac96e7/google-cloud-logging/lib/google/cloud/logging/service.rb#L95-L109

[blowmage]

Ugh. When was this field deprecated?

It looks like resource_names was added to the protobuf fields a couple weeks ago. I take it we should resource_names instead of project_ids?

[blowmage]

@dazuma's Any input on this? Should we add a resources argument to the project#entities method?

[frankyn]

While working with Remi, we came across it trying to figure out a different issue. Yes, that's what we understood as of now.

[blowmage]

@hxiong388 Thoughts?

[hxiong388]

According to the doc, resourceNames field includes the deprecated projectIds value. But since the GAPIC API currently requires project_ids parameter, maybe we can achieve backward compatibility by adding a new resource_names parameter to Service#list_entries, and consolidate project_ids and resource_names into one parameter:

def list_entries projects: nil, resource_names: [], ...
  resource_names = Array(projects || @project) + resource_names
  ...
  paged_enum = logging.list_log_entries nil, resource_names: resource_names , ...

Propagate the same resource_names parameter to Google::Cloud::Logging::Project#entries as well.

Later whoever removes the deprecated project_ids field from GAPIC API can clean up these two Veneer APIs.

[blowmage]

When will project_ids be removed from the API? Also, the documentation site that shows the field as deprecated is showing the version as v2beta1, but Google Cloud Stackdriver Logging is using v2. Are the GAPIC/GRPC endpoints stable? Or will there be additional changes to the released API?

[frankyn]

I don't want to leave you hanging Mike, I have forwarded your questions and waiting on a response!

[filipjs]

Hi. We do not have a timeline yet for the field removal, but most likely that will happen in a couple of months. If you have an option to change your code to use resource_names, please do so.
Yes, we are in the process of renaming our docs from v2beta1 to v2, and there are no other changes planned. The endpoints also do not change.

[blowmage]

@filipjs If a user is using the current release of the google-cloud-logging library, and does not upgrade to a new version that uses the new field, will their client stop working? Are you removing the field from the published protobufs? Or are you removing the field from the server API?

[filipjs]

It will continue to work until it's removed from the protobuf, which means the service will stop accepting it.