2018-06-26 20:14:03 +02:00
|
|
|
// Code generated by protoc-gen-go. DO NOT EDIT.
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
// source: analyzer.proto
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
package pulumirpc
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import proto "github.com/golang/protobuf/proto"
|
|
|
|
import fmt "fmt"
|
|
|
|
import math "math"
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
import empty "github.com/golang/protobuf/ptypes/empty"
|
|
|
|
import _struct "github.com/golang/protobuf/ptypes/struct"
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import (
|
|
|
|
context "golang.org/x/net/context"
|
|
|
|
grpc "google.golang.org/grpc"
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Reference imports to suppress errors if they are not otherwise used.
|
|
|
|
var _ = proto.Marshal
|
|
|
|
var _ = fmt.Errorf
|
|
|
|
var _ = math.Inf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// This is a compile-time assertion to ensure that this generated file
|
|
|
|
// is compatible with the proto package it is being compiled against.
|
|
|
|
// A compilation error at this line likely means your copy of the
|
|
|
|
// proto package needs to be updated.
|
|
|
|
const _ = proto.ProtoPackageIsVersion2 // please upgrade the proto package
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type AnalyzeRequest struct {
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
Type string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=type" json:"type,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Properties *_struct.Struct `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=properties" json:"properties,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
XXX_NoUnkeyedLiteral struct{} `json:"-"`
|
|
|
|
XXX_unrecognized []byte `json:"-"`
|
|
|
|
XXX_sizecache int32 `json:"-"`
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeRequest) Reset() { *m = AnalyzeRequest{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeRequest) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*AnalyzeRequest) ProtoMessage() {}
|
|
|
|
func (*AnalyzeRequest) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) {
|
|
|
|
return fileDescriptor_analyzer_4d94ca02b59f2385, []int{0}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeRequest) XXX_Unmarshal(b []byte) error {
|
|
|
|
return xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeRequest.Unmarshal(m, b)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeRequest) XXX_Marshal(b []byte, deterministic bool) ([]byte, error) {
|
|
|
|
return xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeRequest.Marshal(b, m, deterministic)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (dst *AnalyzeRequest) XXX_Merge(src proto.Message) {
|
|
|
|
xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeRequest.Merge(dst, src)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeRequest) XXX_Size() int {
|
|
|
|
return xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeRequest.Size(m)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeRequest) XXX_DiscardUnknown() {
|
|
|
|
xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeRequest.DiscardUnknown(m)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeRequest proto.InternalMessageInfo
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Make more progress on the new deployment model
This change restructures a lot more pertaining to deployments, snapshots,
environments, and the like.
The most notable change is that the notion of a deploy.Source is introduced,
which splits the responsibility between the deploy.Plan -- which simply
understands how to compute and carry out deployment plans -- and the idea
of something that can produce new objects on-demand during deployment.
The primary such implementation is evalSource, which encapsulates an
interpreter and takes a package, args, and config map, and proceeds to run
the interpreter in a distinct goroutine. It synchronizes as needed to
poke and prod the interpreter along its path to create new resource objects.
There are two other sources, however. First, a nullSource, which simply
refuses to create new objects. This can be handy when writing isolated
tests but is also used to simulate the "empty" environment as necessary to
do a complete teardown of the target environment. Second, a fixedSource,
which takes a pre-computed array of objects, and hands those, in order, to
the planning engine; this is mostly useful as a testing technique.
Boatloads of code is now changed and updated in the various CLI commands.
This further chugs along towards pulumi/lumi#90. The end is in sight.
2017-06-10 20:50:47 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeRequest) GetType() string {
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Type
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeRequest) GetProperties() *_struct.Struct {
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Properties
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Make more progress on the new deployment model
This change restructures a lot more pertaining to deployments, snapshots,
environments, and the like.
The most notable change is that the notion of a deploy.Source is introduced,
which splits the responsibility between the deploy.Plan -- which simply
understands how to compute and carry out deployment plans -- and the idea
of something that can produce new objects on-demand during deployment.
The primary such implementation is evalSource, which encapsulates an
interpreter and takes a package, args, and config map, and proceeds to run
the interpreter in a distinct goroutine. It synchronizes as needed to
poke and prod the interpreter along its path to create new resource objects.
There are two other sources, however. First, a nullSource, which simply
refuses to create new objects. This can be handy when writing isolated
tests but is also used to simulate the "empty" environment as necessary to
do a complete teardown of the target environment. Second, a fixedSource,
which takes a pre-computed array of objects, and hands those, in order, to
the planning engine; this is mostly useful as a testing technique.
Boatloads of code is now changed and updated in the various CLI commands.
This further chugs along towards pulumi/lumi#90. The end is in sight.
2017-06-10 20:50:47 +02:00
|
|
|
type AnalyzeResponse struct {
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
Failures []*AnalyzeFailure `protobuf:"bytes,1,rep,name=failures" json:"failures,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
XXX_NoUnkeyedLiteral struct{} `json:"-"`
|
|
|
|
XXX_unrecognized []byte `json:"-"`
|
|
|
|
XXX_sizecache int32 `json:"-"`
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeResponse) Reset() { *m = AnalyzeResponse{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeResponse) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*AnalyzeResponse) ProtoMessage() {}
|
|
|
|
func (*AnalyzeResponse) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) {
|
|
|
|
return fileDescriptor_analyzer_4d94ca02b59f2385, []int{1}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeResponse) XXX_Unmarshal(b []byte) error {
|
|
|
|
return xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeResponse.Unmarshal(m, b)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeResponse) XXX_Marshal(b []byte, deterministic bool) ([]byte, error) {
|
|
|
|
return xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeResponse.Marshal(b, m, deterministic)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (dst *AnalyzeResponse) XXX_Merge(src proto.Message) {
|
|
|
|
xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeResponse.Merge(dst, src)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeResponse) XXX_Size() int {
|
|
|
|
return xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeResponse.Size(m)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeResponse) XXX_DiscardUnknown() {
|
|
|
|
xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeResponse.DiscardUnknown(m)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeResponse proto.InternalMessageInfo
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Make more progress on the new deployment model
This change restructures a lot more pertaining to deployments, snapshots,
environments, and the like.
The most notable change is that the notion of a deploy.Source is introduced,
which splits the responsibility between the deploy.Plan -- which simply
understands how to compute and carry out deployment plans -- and the idea
of something that can produce new objects on-demand during deployment.
The primary such implementation is evalSource, which encapsulates an
interpreter and takes a package, args, and config map, and proceeds to run
the interpreter in a distinct goroutine. It synchronizes as needed to
poke and prod the interpreter along its path to create new resource objects.
There are two other sources, however. First, a nullSource, which simply
refuses to create new objects. This can be handy when writing isolated
tests but is also used to simulate the "empty" environment as necessary to
do a complete teardown of the target environment. Second, a fixedSource,
which takes a pre-computed array of objects, and hands those, in order, to
the planning engine; this is mostly useful as a testing technique.
Boatloads of code is now changed and updated in the various CLI commands.
This further chugs along towards pulumi/lumi#90. The end is in sight.
2017-06-10 20:50:47 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeResponse) GetFailures() []*AnalyzeFailure {
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Failures
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Make more progress on the new deployment model
This change restructures a lot more pertaining to deployments, snapshots,
environments, and the like.
The most notable change is that the notion of a deploy.Source is introduced,
which splits the responsibility between the deploy.Plan -- which simply
understands how to compute and carry out deployment plans -- and the idea
of something that can produce new objects on-demand during deployment.
The primary such implementation is evalSource, which encapsulates an
interpreter and takes a package, args, and config map, and proceeds to run
the interpreter in a distinct goroutine. It synchronizes as needed to
poke and prod the interpreter along its path to create new resource objects.
There are two other sources, however. First, a nullSource, which simply
refuses to create new objects. This can be handy when writing isolated
tests but is also used to simulate the "empty" environment as necessary to
do a complete teardown of the target environment. Second, a fixedSource,
which takes a pre-computed array of objects, and hands those, in order, to
the planning engine; this is mostly useful as a testing technique.
Boatloads of code is now changed and updated in the various CLI commands.
This further chugs along towards pulumi/lumi#90. The end is in sight.
2017-06-10 20:50:47 +02:00
|
|
|
type AnalyzeFailure struct {
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
Property string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=property" json:"property,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Reason string `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=reason" json:"reason,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
XXX_NoUnkeyedLiteral struct{} `json:"-"`
|
|
|
|
XXX_unrecognized []byte `json:"-"`
|
|
|
|
XXX_sizecache int32 `json:"-"`
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeFailure) Reset() { *m = AnalyzeFailure{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeFailure) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*AnalyzeFailure) ProtoMessage() {}
|
|
|
|
func (*AnalyzeFailure) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) {
|
|
|
|
return fileDescriptor_analyzer_4d94ca02b59f2385, []int{2}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeFailure) XXX_Unmarshal(b []byte) error {
|
|
|
|
return xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeFailure.Unmarshal(m, b)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeFailure) XXX_Marshal(b []byte, deterministic bool) ([]byte, error) {
|
|
|
|
return xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeFailure.Marshal(b, m, deterministic)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (dst *AnalyzeFailure) XXX_Merge(src proto.Message) {
|
|
|
|
xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeFailure.Merge(dst, src)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeFailure) XXX_Size() int {
|
|
|
|
return xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeFailure.Size(m)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeFailure) XXX_DiscardUnknown() {
|
|
|
|
xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeFailure.DiscardUnknown(m)
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
var xxx_messageInfo_AnalyzeFailure proto.InternalMessageInfo
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Make more progress on the new deployment model
This change restructures a lot more pertaining to deployments, snapshots,
environments, and the like.
The most notable change is that the notion of a deploy.Source is introduced,
which splits the responsibility between the deploy.Plan -- which simply
understands how to compute and carry out deployment plans -- and the idea
of something that can produce new objects on-demand during deployment.
The primary such implementation is evalSource, which encapsulates an
interpreter and takes a package, args, and config map, and proceeds to run
the interpreter in a distinct goroutine. It synchronizes as needed to
poke and prod the interpreter along its path to create new resource objects.
There are two other sources, however. First, a nullSource, which simply
refuses to create new objects. This can be handy when writing isolated
tests but is also used to simulate the "empty" environment as necessary to
do a complete teardown of the target environment. Second, a fixedSource,
which takes a pre-computed array of objects, and hands those, in order, to
the planning engine; this is mostly useful as a testing technique.
Boatloads of code is now changed and updated in the various CLI commands.
This further chugs along towards pulumi/lumi#90. The end is in sight.
2017-06-10 20:50:47 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeFailure) GetProperty() string {
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Property
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Make more progress on the new deployment model
This change restructures a lot more pertaining to deployments, snapshots,
environments, and the like.
The most notable change is that the notion of a deploy.Source is introduced,
which splits the responsibility between the deploy.Plan -- which simply
understands how to compute and carry out deployment plans -- and the idea
of something that can produce new objects on-demand during deployment.
The primary such implementation is evalSource, which encapsulates an
interpreter and takes a package, args, and config map, and proceeds to run
the interpreter in a distinct goroutine. It synchronizes as needed to
poke and prod the interpreter along its path to create new resource objects.
There are two other sources, however. First, a nullSource, which simply
refuses to create new objects. This can be handy when writing isolated
tests but is also used to simulate the "empty" environment as necessary to
do a complete teardown of the target environment. Second, a fixedSource,
which takes a pre-computed array of objects, and hands those, in order, to
the planning engine; this is mostly useful as a testing technique.
Boatloads of code is now changed and updated in the various CLI commands.
This further chugs along towards pulumi/lumi#90. The end is in sight.
2017-06-10 20:50:47 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *AnalyzeFailure) GetReason() string {
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Reason
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func init() {
|
2017-09-22 04:18:21 +02:00
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*AnalyzeRequest)(nil), "pulumirpc.AnalyzeRequest")
|
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*AnalyzeResponse)(nil), "pulumirpc.AnalyzeResponse")
|
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*AnalyzeFailure)(nil), "pulumirpc.AnalyzeFailure")
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Reference imports to suppress errors if they are not otherwise used.
|
|
|
|
var _ context.Context
|
|
|
|
var _ grpc.ClientConn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// This is a compile-time assertion to ensure that this generated file
|
|
|
|
// is compatible with the grpc package it is being compiled against.
|
|
|
|
const _ = grpc.SupportPackageIsVersion4
|
|
|
|
|
2018-06-30 01:14:49 +02:00
|
|
|
// Client API for Analyzer service
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
type AnalyzerClient interface {
|
Make more progress on the new deployment model
This change restructures a lot more pertaining to deployments, snapshots,
environments, and the like.
The most notable change is that the notion of a deploy.Source is introduced,
which splits the responsibility between the deploy.Plan -- which simply
understands how to compute and carry out deployment plans -- and the idea
of something that can produce new objects on-demand during deployment.
The primary such implementation is evalSource, which encapsulates an
interpreter and takes a package, args, and config map, and proceeds to run
the interpreter in a distinct goroutine. It synchronizes as needed to
poke and prod the interpreter along its path to create new resource objects.
There are two other sources, however. First, a nullSource, which simply
refuses to create new objects. This can be handy when writing isolated
tests but is also used to simulate the "empty" environment as necessary to
do a complete teardown of the target environment. Second, a fixedSource,
which takes a pre-computed array of objects, and hands those, in order, to
the planning engine; this is mostly useful as a testing technique.
Boatloads of code is now changed and updated in the various CLI commands.
This further chugs along towards pulumi/lumi#90. The end is in sight.
2017-06-10 20:50:47 +02:00
|
|
|
// Analyze analyzes a single resource object, and returns any errors that it finds.
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
Analyze(ctx context.Context, in *AnalyzeRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*AnalyzeResponse, error)
|
2017-12-01 22:50:32 +01:00
|
|
|
// GetPluginInfo returns generic information about this plugin, like its version.
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
GetPluginInfo(ctx context.Context, in *empty.Empty, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*PluginInfo, error)
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
type analyzerClient struct {
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
cc *grpc.ClientConn
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
func NewAnalyzerClient(cc *grpc.ClientConn) AnalyzerClient {
|
|
|
|
return &analyzerClient{cc}
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
func (c *analyzerClient) Analyze(ctx context.Context, in *AnalyzeRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*AnalyzeResponse, error) {
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
out := new(AnalyzeResponse)
|
2018-06-30 01:14:49 +02:00
|
|
|
err := grpc.Invoke(ctx, "/pulumirpc.Analyzer/Analyze", in, out, c.cc, opts...)
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return out, nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
func (c *analyzerClient) GetPluginInfo(ctx context.Context, in *empty.Empty, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*PluginInfo, error) {
|
2017-12-01 22:50:32 +01:00
|
|
|
out := new(PluginInfo)
|
2018-06-30 01:14:49 +02:00
|
|
|
err := grpc.Invoke(ctx, "/pulumirpc.Analyzer/GetPluginInfo", in, out, c.cc, opts...)
|
2017-12-01 22:50:32 +01:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return out, nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-06-30 01:14:49 +02:00
|
|
|
// Server API for Analyzer service
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
type AnalyzerServer interface {
|
Make more progress on the new deployment model
This change restructures a lot more pertaining to deployments, snapshots,
environments, and the like.
The most notable change is that the notion of a deploy.Source is introduced,
which splits the responsibility between the deploy.Plan -- which simply
understands how to compute and carry out deployment plans -- and the idea
of something that can produce new objects on-demand during deployment.
The primary such implementation is evalSource, which encapsulates an
interpreter and takes a package, args, and config map, and proceeds to run
the interpreter in a distinct goroutine. It synchronizes as needed to
poke and prod the interpreter along its path to create new resource objects.
There are two other sources, however. First, a nullSource, which simply
refuses to create new objects. This can be handy when writing isolated
tests but is also used to simulate the "empty" environment as necessary to
do a complete teardown of the target environment. Second, a fixedSource,
which takes a pre-computed array of objects, and hands those, in order, to
the planning engine; this is mostly useful as a testing technique.
Boatloads of code is now changed and updated in the various CLI commands.
This further chugs along towards pulumi/lumi#90. The end is in sight.
2017-06-10 20:50:47 +02:00
|
|
|
// Analyze analyzes a single resource object, and returns any errors that it finds.
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
Analyze(context.Context, *AnalyzeRequest) (*AnalyzeResponse, error)
|
2017-12-01 22:50:32 +01:00
|
|
|
// GetPluginInfo returns generic information about this plugin, like its version.
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
GetPluginInfo(context.Context, *empty.Empty) (*PluginInfo, error)
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
func RegisterAnalyzerServer(s *grpc.Server, srv AnalyzerServer) {
|
|
|
|
s.RegisterService(&_Analyzer_serviceDesc, srv)
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
func _Analyzer_Analyze_Handler(srv interface{}, ctx context.Context, dec func(interface{}) error, interceptor grpc.UnaryServerInterceptor) (interface{}, error) {
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
in := new(AnalyzeRequest)
|
|
|
|
if err := dec(in); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if interceptor == nil {
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
return srv.(AnalyzerServer).Analyze(ctx, in)
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
info := &grpc.UnaryServerInfo{
|
|
|
|
Server: srv,
|
2017-09-22 04:18:21 +02:00
|
|
|
FullMethod: "/pulumirpc.Analyzer/Analyze",
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
handler := func(ctx context.Context, req interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
return srv.(AnalyzerServer).Analyze(ctx, req.(*AnalyzeRequest))
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return interceptor(ctx, in, info, handler)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-12-01 22:50:32 +01:00
|
|
|
func _Analyzer_GetPluginInfo_Handler(srv interface{}, ctx context.Context, dec func(interface{}) error, interceptor grpc.UnaryServerInterceptor) (interface{}, error) {
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
in := new(empty.Empty)
|
2017-12-01 22:50:32 +01:00
|
|
|
if err := dec(in); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if interceptor == nil {
|
|
|
|
return srv.(AnalyzerServer).GetPluginInfo(ctx, in)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
info := &grpc.UnaryServerInfo{
|
|
|
|
Server: srv,
|
|
|
|
FullMethod: "/pulumirpc.Analyzer/GetPluginInfo",
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
handler := func(ctx context.Context, req interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
return srv.(AnalyzerServer).GetPluginInfo(ctx, req.(*empty.Empty))
|
2017-12-01 22:50:32 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return interceptor(ctx, in, info, handler)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
var _Analyzer_serviceDesc = grpc.ServiceDesc{
|
2017-09-22 04:18:21 +02:00
|
|
|
ServiceName: "pulumirpc.Analyzer",
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
HandlerType: (*AnalyzerServer)(nil),
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
Methods: []grpc.MethodDesc{
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
MethodName: "Analyze",
|
2017-03-11 19:07:34 +01:00
|
|
|
Handler: _Analyzer_Analyze_Handler,
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
},
|
2017-12-01 22:50:32 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
MethodName: "GetPluginInfo",
|
|
|
|
Handler: _Analyzer_GetPluginInfo_Handler,
|
|
|
|
},
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
Streams: []grpc.StreamDesc{},
|
|
|
|
Metadata: "analyzer.proto",
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
func init() { proto.RegisterFile("analyzer.proto", fileDescriptor_analyzer_4d94ca02b59f2385) }
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2018-07-12 03:07:50 +02:00
|
|
|
var fileDescriptor_analyzer_4d94ca02b59f2385 = []byte{
|
2017-12-01 22:50:32 +01:00
|
|
|
// 287 bytes of a gzipped FileDescriptorProto
|
2018-06-26 20:14:03 +02:00
|
|
|
0x1f, 0x8b, 0x08, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x02, 0xff, 0x6c, 0x91, 0x4f, 0x4b, 0xc3, 0x40,
|
2017-12-01 22:50:32 +01:00
|
|
|
0x10, 0xc5, 0x1b, 0x95, 0xda, 0x4e, 0xb5, 0xc2, 0x80, 0xb5, 0xae, 0x1e, 0x42, 0x4e, 0x39, 0x6d,
|
|
|
|
0x21, 0x22, 0x5e, 0x55, 0xfc, 0x7b, 0x93, 0x78, 0xf6, 0x90, 0x96, 0x49, 0x08, 0xa4, 0xd9, 0x75,
|
|
|
|
0xff, 0x1c, 0xe2, 0xa7, 0xf0, 0x23, 0x8b, 0xbb, 0x6b, 0x2c, 0xda, 0xdb, 0x0c, 0xef, 0xf1, 0x9b,
|
|
|
|
0x37, 0x33, 0x30, 0x2d, 0xda, 0xa2, 0xe9, 0x3e, 0x48, 0x71, 0xa9, 0x84, 0x11, 0x38, 0x96, 0xb6,
|
|
|
|
0xb1, 0xeb, 0x5a, 0xc9, 0x15, 0x3b, 0x90, 0x8d, 0xad, 0xea, 0xd6, 0x0b, 0xec, 0xac, 0x12, 0xa2,
|
|
|
|
0x6a, 0x68, 0xe1, 0xba, 0xa5, 0x2d, 0x17, 0xb4, 0x96, 0xa6, 0x0b, 0xe2, 0xf9, 0x5f, 0x51, 0x1b,
|
|
|
|
0x65, 0x57, 0xc6, 0xab, 0xc9, 0x1b, 0x4c, 0x6f, 0xfc, 0x94, 0x9c, 0xde, 0x2d, 0x69, 0x83, 0x08,
|
|
|
|
0x7b, 0xa6, 0x93, 0x34, 0x8f, 0xe2, 0x28, 0x1d, 0xe7, 0xae, 0xc6, 0x2b, 0x00, 0xa9, 0x84, 0x24,
|
|
|
|
0x65, 0x6a, 0xd2, 0xf3, 0x9d, 0x38, 0x4a, 0x27, 0xd9, 0x09, 0xf7, 0x60, 0xfe, 0x03, 0xe6, 0xaf,
|
|
|
|
0x0e, 0x9c, 0x6f, 0x58, 0x93, 0x27, 0x38, 0xea, 0xf1, 0x5a, 0x8a, 0x56, 0x13, 0x5e, 0xc2, 0xa8,
|
|
|
|
0x2c, 0xea, 0xc6, 0x2a, 0xd2, 0xf3, 0x28, 0xde, 0x4d, 0x27, 0xd9, 0x29, 0xef, 0x17, 0xe3, 0xc1,
|
|
|
|
0xfd, 0xe0, 0x1d, 0x79, 0x6f, 0x4d, 0xee, 0xfa, 0xa0, 0x41, 0x43, 0x06, 0xa3, 0x30, 0xa9, 0x0b,
|
|
|
|
0x61, 0xfb, 0x1e, 0x67, 0x30, 0x54, 0x54, 0x68, 0xd1, 0xba, 0xb0, 0xe3, 0x3c, 0x74, 0xd9, 0x67,
|
|
|
|
0x04, 0xa3, 0x80, 0x51, 0x78, 0x0b, 0xfb, 0xa1, 0xc6, 0x2d, 0x11, 0xc2, 0x3d, 0x18, 0xdb, 0x26,
|
|
|
|
0xf9, 0x5d, 0x92, 0x01, 0x5e, 0xc3, 0xe1, 0x23, 0x99, 0x17, 0xf7, 0x8d, 0xe7, 0xb6, 0x14, 0x38,
|
|
|
|
0xfb, 0x77, 0x96, 0xfb, 0xef, 0x67, 0xb0, 0xe3, 0x0d, 0xcc, 0xaf, 0x3d, 0x19, 0x2c, 0x87, 0xce,
|
|
|
|
0x78, 0xf1, 0x15, 0x00, 0x00, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0x6d, 0x9c, 0x46, 0xee, 0x01, 0x00, 0x00,
|
Add basic analyzer support
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
2017-03-11 08:49:17 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|