Instead do:

this.logging = logging != null ? logging : Data.nullOf(Bucket.Logging.class);

@frankyn thanks for the quick review I think we have to go with the null instead of Data.nullOf(com.google.cloud.storage.Bucket.Logging.class) because if we do as you said then the following error occurs : unable to create new instance of class com.google.cloud.storage.BucketInfo$Logging because it has no accessible default constructor

Revert this change:

 Bucket.Logging loggingPb = logging != null ? logging.toPb() : Data.nullOf(Bucket.Logging.class);

I think we also have to keep this check because when the object of logging is null, the logging.toPb() will throw the nullPointer exception.

https://github.com/googleapis/java-storage/compare/qlogics?expand=1

Here's alternative solution. If you have concerns with it always open to discuss further.

I'd like to address the issue with logging field is not selected in Fields. In which case it comes back null and this PR can corrupt the logging field when not selected.

For example this will corrupt logging metadata:

      BucketInfo.Logging logging =
          BucketInfo.Logging.newBuilder()
              .setLogBucket(logsBucket)
              .setLogObjectPrefix("test-logs")
              .build();
      Bucket bucket =
          storage.create(
              BucketInfo.newBuilder(loggingBucket).setLocation("us").setLogging(logging).build());
      // Perform Get Request without selecting logging field
      Bucket remoteBucket = storage.get(loggingBucket);
      // Don't update logging and only perform an update.
      Bucket updatedBucket = bucket.toBuilder().build().update();
      // Logging is now null.

Additionally could you remove setting IAM policy to allow writes from allAuthenticatedUsers. This is a security risk:

          storage.setIamPolicy(
              logsBucket,
              policy
                  .toBuilder()
                  .addIdentity(StorageRoles.legacyBucketWriter(), Identity.allAuthenticatedUsers())
                  .build()));

@frankyn good catch and thanks for the detailed description.

Both the comments have been addressed PTAL when get chance.

This should be an || an or.

done