fix: Creating non dp grpc client when dp check fails

[vadlakondaswetha]

For rapid, if direct path doesnt work and server rejects the non dp calls as part of dp verification check, then we are ignoring the error and continuing with the mount. The problem with this approach is that since we are passing withDPEnforced header for every call, any call made to GCS after mount will also be rejected by the server.

To avoid this, we should create a new gRPC client which doesnt pass the header if dp check fails.

Note: Today server rejecting non dp calls is behind whitelisting and not fully rolled out.

Description

Link to the issue in case of a bug fix.

Testing details

1. Manual - Done
2. Unit tests - Added
3. Integration tests - NA

Any backward incompatible change? If so, please explain.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request refactors the gRPC client creation and DirectPath verification logic, replacing the rapid bucket check with an explicit DirectPath enforcement flag and introducing a unified client creation helper. It also adds comprehensive unit tests to validate the fallback behavior under different strategies. The feedback suggests removing the explicit client close call during verification failure, as the garbage collector handles resource cleanup.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.50000% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 83.97%. Comparing base (5716f09) to head (f9ac36f).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
internal/storage/storage_handle.go	87.50%	3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4989      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.85%   83.97%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         173      173              
  Lines       21171    21204      +33     
==========================================
+ Hits        17752    17805      +53     
+ Misses       2750     2734      -16     
+ Partials      669      665       -4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	83.97% <87.50%> (+0.11%)	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[github-actions]

Hi @abhishek10004, @meet2mky, your feedback is needed to move this pull request forward. This automated reminder was triggered because there has been no activity for over 24 hours. Please provide your input when you have a moment. Thank you!

[github-actions]

Hi @abhishek10004, @meet2mky, your feedback is needed to move this pull request forward. This automated reminder was triggered because there has been no activity for over 24 hours. Please provide your input when you have a moment. Thank you!

[github-actions]

Hi @abhishek10004, @meet2mky, your feedback is needed to move this pull request forward. This automated reminder was triggered because there has been no activity for over 24 hours. Please provide your input when you have a moment. Thank you!