Bigtable: Mark GC policy legacy fields as deprecated

[kevinsi4508]

Mark legacy GC policy fields deprecated: 'mode', 'max_age' and 'max_version'. They will be eventually removed. Instruct users to use 'gc_rules' instead.

Update examples to use 'gc_rules' instead of the legacy fields.

If this PR is for Terraform, I acknowledge that I have:

• [x] Searched through the issue tracker for an open issue that this either resolves or contributes to, commented on it to claim it, and written "fixes {url}" or "part of {url}" in this PR description. If there were no relevant open issues, I opened one and commented that I would like to work on it (not necessary for very small changes).
• [x] Generated Terraform, and ran make test and make lint to ensure it passes unit and linter tests.
• [x] Ensured that all new fields I added that can be set by a user appear in at least one example (for generated resources) or third_party test (for handwritten resources or update tests).
• [x] Ran relevant acceptance tests (If the acceptance tests do not yet pass or you are unable to run them, please let your reviewer know).
• [x] Read the Release Notes Guide before writing my release note below.

Release Note Template for Downstream PRs (will be copied)

bigtable: deprecated GC policy legacy fields: 'mode', 'max_age' and 'max_version'

[modular-magician]

Hello! I am a robot who works on Magic Modules PRs.

I've detected that you're a community contributor. @rileykarson, a repository maintainer, has been assigned to assist you and help review your changes.

:question: First time contributing? Click here for more details

---

Your assigned reviewer will help review your code by:

• Ensuring it's backwards compatible, covers common error cases, etc.
• Summarizing the change into a user-facing changelog note.
• Passes tests, either our "VCR" suite, a set of presubmit tests, or with manual test runs.

You can help make sure that review is quick by running local tests and ensuring they're passing in between each push you make to your PR's branch. Also, try to leave a comment with each push you make, as pushes generally don't generate emails.

If your reviewer doesn't get back to you within a week after your most recent change, please feel free to leave a comment on the issue asking them to take a look! In the absence of a dedicated review dashboard most maintainers manage their pending reviews through email, and those will sometimes get lost in their inbox.

---

[modular-magician]

Hi! I'm the modular magician. Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.

Diff report:

Terraform GA: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)) Terraform Beta: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)) TF Validator: Diff ( 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-))

[modular-magician]

Tests analytics

Total tests: 2176 Passed tests 1936 Skipped tests: 238 Failed tests: 2

Action taken

Triggering VCR tests in RECORDING mode for the tests that failed during VCR. Click here to see the failed tests

TestAccComputeInstance_soleTenantNodeAffinities|TestAccCGCSnippet_eventarcWorkflowsExample

[modular-magician]

Tests failed during RECORDING mode: TestAccComputeInstance_soleTenantNodeAffinities[Error message] [Debug log] TestAccCGCSnippet_eventarcWorkflowsExample[Error message] [Debug log]

Please fix these to complete your PR View the build log or the debug log for each test

[kevinsi4508]

@hoangpham95, Please take a look. Thanks!

[kevinsi4508]

I don't have a plan for removing these fields yet. What I want is making it very obvious that users shouldn't be using these deprecated field. Using them will have unexpected behavior. Do you think marking them as deprecated is too disruptive compare to documenting them as deprecated?

[rileykarson]

Rather than documenting them as deprecated I'd lean towards documenting the newer field as recommended instead. IMO if we're going to mark a deprecation, we need to be able to support seamless transitions between them.

[kevinsi4508]

Rather than documenting them as deprecated I'd lean towards documenting the newer field as recommended instead. IMO if we're going to mark a deprecation, we need to be able to support seamless transitions between them.

I don't think there is a seamless transition support between gc_rules and those 3 legacy fields. If this is preventing marking them as deprecated, so be it, I will go with the documentation route. Personally, I don't believe this is obvious enough to encourage our users to switch to using gc_rules.

[kevinsi4508]

Done.

[modular-magician]

Hi! I'm the modular magician. Your PR generated some diffs in downstreams - here they are.

Diff report:

Terraform GA: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)) Terraform Beta: Diff ( 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)) TF Validator: Diff ( 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-))

[modular-magician]

Tests analytics

Total tests: 2176 Passed tests 1936 Skipped tests: 238 Failed tests: 2

Action taken

Triggering VCR tests in RECORDING mode for the tests that failed during VCR. Click here to see the failed tests

TestAccComputeInstance_soleTenantNodeAffinities|TestAccCGCSnippet_eventarcWorkflowsExample

[modular-magician]

Tests failed during RECORDING mode: TestAccComputeInstance_soleTenantNodeAffinities[Error message] [Debug log] TestAccCGCSnippet_eventarcWorkflowsExample[Error message] [Debug log]

Please fix these to complete your PR View the build log or the debug log for each test

[kevinsi4508]

PTAL