Allow enabling versioning on buckets with a GCP location constraint

[maeldonn]

Not handled yet

Gap	Impact	What it would take
S3 has a suspended versioning state, with null version ids. GCS versioning is only on or off	A GCP location cannot represent a suspended bucket	Decide whether to reject the configuration or emulate the state
Object versioning on the GCS bucket is a hard requirement: without it, the delete issued behind a delete marker destroys the data instead of archiving it	Silent data loss	Block writes on a non-versioned bucket, instead of only reporting it in the healthcheck
GCS lifecycle rules on noncurrent versions (isLive: false, daysSinceNoncurrentTime, numNewerVersions) can reap generations that S3 still serves as current	Deferred and silent data loss, with no error at write time	Document the precondition, and consider detecting such rules at configuration time
GCS never promotes a noncurrent generation, so the backend state diverges from the S3 view after an undelete or a version delete	Confusing during support, and the root cause of the lifecycle exposure above	Optional: promote by copy, accepting the new generation, the non-atomicity and the storage class reset

[bert-e]

Hello maeldonn,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options

name	description	privileged	authored
/after_pull_request	Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval	Bypass the pull request author's approval	⭐
/bypass_build_status	Bypass the build and test status	⭐
/bypass_commit_size	Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA	⭐
/bypass_incompatible_branch	Bypass the check on the source branch prefix	⭐
/bypass_jira_check	Bypass the Jira issue check	⭐
/bypass_peer_approval	Bypass the pull request peers' approval	⭐
/bypass_leader_approval	Bypass the pull request leaders' approval	⭐
/bypass_source_branch_lineage	Bypass the cross-branch contamination check	⭐
/approve	Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request.		✍️
/create_pull_requests	Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches	Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus	Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity	Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait	Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.

Available commands

name	description	privileged
/help	Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status	Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request.
/clear	Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset	Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset	Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

[bert-e]

Branches have diverged

This pull request's source branch improvement/gpc-versionning has diverged from
development/9.4 by more than 50 commits.

To avoid any integration risks, please re-synchronize them using one of the
following solutions:

• Merge origin/development/9.4 into improvement/gpc-versionning
• Rebase improvement/gpc-versionning onto origin/development/9.4

Note: If you choose to rebase, you may have to ask me to rebuild
integration branches using the reset command.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.05%. Comparing base (0d08680) to head (5029db2).
⚠️ Report is 114 commits behind head on development/9.4.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/api/apiUtils/object/createAndStoreObject.js	86.87% <100.00%> (+0.62%)	⬆️
lib/api/bucketPutVersioning.js	90.10% <ø> (ø)
lib/api/multiObjectDelete.js	80.65% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/api/objectCopy.js	89.39% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.4    #6265      +/-   ##
===================================================
- Coverage            86.10%   86.05%   -0.05%     
===================================================
  Files                  212      212              
  Lines                14483    14483              
===================================================
- Hits                 12470    12464       -6     
- Misses                2013     2019       +6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
file-ft-tests	70.10% <100.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
file-ft-tests-null-compat	70.59% <100.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
kmip-ft-tests	27.93% <75.00%> (ø)
mongo-v0-ft-tests	71.22% <100.00%> (ø)
mongo-v1-ft-tests	71.19% <100.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
multiple-backend	36.13% <75.00%> (ø)
s3c-ft-tests-v0	65.13% <100.00%> (ø)
s3c-ft-tests-v0-null-compat	65.19% <100.00%> (ø)
s3c-ft-tests-v1	65.13% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
sur-tests	34.82% <75.00%> (-0.86%)	⬇️
sur-tests-inflights	37.54% <75.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
unit	73.01% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
utapi-v2-tests	35.11% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[maeldonn]

Replaced with #6266