Codecov Report

Merging #6426 into master will decrease coverage by <.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #6426      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     46.34%   46.34%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity    27967    27966       -1     
============================================
  Files          2613     2613              
  Lines        287929   287929              
  Branches      33756    33756              
============================================
- Hits         133443   133441       -2     
- Misses       144267   144268       +1     
- Partials      10219    10220       +1

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 19eee78...2ca894c. Read the comment docs.

My one concern is that this seems more widely applicable to ServiceOptions rather than SpannerOptions, especially for any server backed by gRPC. I don't know if it's desirable to spill implementation details into these classes.

My other thought is on the other side of the problem, and whether we should come up with a sane way to have a private class that extends com.google.auth.Credentials such that it'd obviate this request.

/cc @tsalomie

My one concern is that this seems more widely applicable to ServiceOptions rather than SpannerOptions, especially for any server backed by gRPC. I don't know if it's desirable to spill implementation details into these classes.

I can see that one too, and adding this option to ServiceOptions is obviously a trivial change. However, the way that the different client libraries setup and invoke the gRPC calls can differ quite a lot. Spanner happens to already have one method newCallContext that is called for every gRPC call to setup the call context to use, which makes it easy to respect the CallCredentials setting. I'm not sure whether that part of the change would be equally trivial for other client libraries.

@Capstan Any update on whether this change is still something you would need, or did you find some other way to use CallCredentials instead of Credentials?

@olavloite I'm discussing this with Google-internal colleagues on the team that needs it. I don't believe we have an alternate solution at the moment, but I've not checked in recently and need to sync with them.

/cc @pawelz

/cc @tsalomie

I am going to pursue – after the weekend – extending the internal support so that also can handle com.google.auth.Credentials. I'm fairly positive that will work out of the box and will obviate the need for this PR.

/cc @xiesheng211

@olavloite This PR will need to be reopened in the https://github.com/googleapis/java-spanner repo as we've migrated the google-cloud-spanner code

@Capstan Is this PR still needed? If so, we need to migrate it to the new repository.

Yes, we still need this functionality.

Moved to the new repo and merged there.