2018-03-21 20:43:21 +01:00
|
|
|
// Copyright 2016-2018, Pulumi Corporation. All rights reserved.
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
package deploy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import (
|
|
|
|
|
"io"
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-22 04:18:21 +02:00
|
|
|
"github.com/pulumi/pulumi/pkg/resource"
|
|
|
|
|
"github.com/pulumi/pulumi/pkg/tokens"
|
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
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// A Source can generate a new set of resources that the planner will process accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
type Source interface {
|
|
|
|
|
io.Closer
|
Implement a refresh command
This change implements a `pulumi refresh` command. It operates a bit
like `pulumi update`, and friends, in that it supports `--preview` and
`--diff`, along with the usual flags, and will update your checkpoint.
It works through substitution of the deploy.Source abstraction, which
generates a sequence of resource registration events. This new
deploy.RefreshSource takes in a prior checkpoint and will walk it,
refreshing the state via the associated resource providers by invoking
Read for each resource encountered, and merging the resulting state with
the prior checkpoint, to yield a new resource.Goal state. This state is
then fed through the engine in the usual ways with a few minor caveats:
namely, although the engine must generate steps for the logical
operations (permitting us to get nice summaries, progress, and diffs),
it mustn't actually carry them out because the state being imported
already reflects reality (a deleted resource has *already* been deleted,
so of course the engine need not perform the deletion). The diffing
logic also needs to know how to treat the case of refresh slightly
differently, because we are going to be diffing outputs and not inputs.
Note that support for managed stacks is not yet complete, since that
requires updates to the service to support a refresh endpoint. That
will be coming soon ...
2018-04-10 20:22:39 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-02-14 22:56:16 +01:00
|
|
|
// Project returns the package name of the Pulumi project we are obtaining resources from.
|
|
|
|
|
Project() tokens.PackageName
|
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
|
|
|
// Info returns a serializable payload that can be used to stamp snapshots for future reconciliation.
|
|
|
|
|
Info() interface{}
|
2018-04-18 20:12:02 +02:00
|
|
|
// IsRefresh indicates whether this source returns events source from existing state (true), and hence can simply
|
|
|
|
|
// be assumed to reflect existing state, or whether the events should acted upon (false).
|
|
|
|
|
IsRefresh() bool
|
Implement a refresh command
This change implements a `pulumi refresh` command. It operates a bit
like `pulumi update`, and friends, in that it supports `--preview` and
`--diff`, along with the usual flags, and will update your checkpoint.
It works through substitution of the deploy.Source abstraction, which
generates a sequence of resource registration events. This new
deploy.RefreshSource takes in a prior checkpoint and will walk it,
refreshing the state via the associated resource providers by invoking
Read for each resource encountered, and merging the resulting state with
the prior checkpoint, to yield a new resource.Goal state. This state is
then fed through the engine in the usual ways with a few minor caveats:
namely, although the engine must generate steps for the logical
operations (permitting us to get nice summaries, progress, and diffs),
it mustn't actually carry them out because the state being imported
already reflects reality (a deleted resource has *already* been deleted,
so of course the engine need not perform the deletion). The diffing
logic also needs to know how to treat the case of refresh slightly
differently, because we are going to be diffing outputs and not inputs.
Note that support for managed stacks is not yet complete, since that
requires updates to the service to support a refresh endpoint. That
will be coming soon ...
2018-04-10 20:22:39 +02:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
// Iterate begins iterating the source. Error is non-nil upon failure; otherwise, a valid iterator is returned.
|
2017-09-16 01:38:52 +02:00
|
|
|
Iterate(opts Options) (SourceIterator, error)
|
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
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-11-21 02:38:09 +01:00
|
|
|
// A SourceIterator enumerates the list of resources that a source has to offer and tracks associated state.
|
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 SourceIterator interface {
|
|
|
|
|
io.Closer
|
Implement a refresh command
This change implements a `pulumi refresh` command. It operates a bit
like `pulumi update`, and friends, in that it supports `--preview` and
`--diff`, along with the usual flags, and will update your checkpoint.
It works through substitution of the deploy.Source abstraction, which
generates a sequence of resource registration events. This new
deploy.RefreshSource takes in a prior checkpoint and will walk it,
refreshing the state via the associated resource providers by invoking
Read for each resource encountered, and merging the resulting state with
the prior checkpoint, to yield a new resource.Goal state. This state is
then fed through the engine in the usual ways with a few minor caveats:
namely, although the engine must generate steps for the logical
operations (permitting us to get nice summaries, progress, and diffs),
it mustn't actually carry them out because the state being imported
already reflects reality (a deleted resource has *already* been deleted,
so of course the engine need not perform the deletion). The diffing
logic also needs to know how to treat the case of refresh slightly
differently, because we are going to be diffing outputs and not inputs.
Note that support for managed stacks is not yet complete, since that
requires updates to the service to support a refresh endpoint. That
will be coming soon ...
2018-04-10 20:22:39 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Bring back component outputs
This change brings back component outputs to the overall system again.
In doing so, it generally overhauls the way we do resource RPCs a bit:
* Instead of RegisterResource and CompleteResource, we call these
BeginRegisterResource and EndRegisterResource, which begins to model
these as effectively "asynchronous" resource requests. This should also
help with parallelism (https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/issues/106).
* Flip the CLI/engine a little on its head. Rather than it driving the
planning and deployment process, we move more to a model where it
simply observes it. This is done by implementing an event handler
interface with three events: OnResourceStepPre, OnResourceStepPost,
and OnResourceComplete. The first two are invoked immediately before
and after any step operation, and the latter is invoked whenever a
EndRegisterResource comes in. The reason for the asymmetry here is
that the checkpointing logic in the deployment engine is largely
untouched (intentionally, as this is a sensitive part of the system),
and so the "begin"/"end" nature doesn't flow through faithfully.
* Also make the engine more event-oriented in its terminology and the
way it handles the incoming BeginRegisterResource and
EndRegisterResource events from the language host. This is the first
step down a long road of incrementally refactoring the engine to work
this way, a necessary prerequisite for parallelism.
2017-11-29 16:42:14 +01:00
|
|
|
// Next returns the next event from the source.
|
|
|
|
|
Next() (SourceEvent, error)
|
Implement `get` functions on all resources
This change implements the `get` function for resources. Per pulumi/lumi#83,
this allows Lumi scripts to actually read from the target environment.
For example, we can now look up a SecurityGroup from its ARN:
let group = aws.ec2.SecurityGroup.get(
"arn:aws:ec2:us-west-2:153052954103:security-group:sg-02150d79");
The returned object is a fully functional resource object. So, we can then
link it up with an EC2 instance, for example, in the usual ways:
let instance = new aws.ec2.Instance(..., {
securityGroups: [ group ],
});
This didn't require any changes to the RPC or provider model, since we
already implement the Get function.
There are a few loose ends; two are short term:
1) URNs are not rehydrated.
2) Query is not yet implemented.
One is mid-term:
3) We probably want a URN-based lookup function. But we will likely
wait until we tackle pulumi/lumi#109 before adding this.
And one is long term (and subtle):
4) These amount to I/O and are not repeatable! A change in the target
environment may cause a script to generate a different plan
intermittently. Most likely we want to apply a different kind of
deployment "policy" for such scripts. These are inching towards the
scripting model of pulumi/lumi#121, which is an entirely different
beast than the repeatable immutable infrastructure deployments.
Finally, it is worth noting that with this, we have some of the fundamental
underpinnings required to finally tackle "inference" (pulumi/lumi#142).
2017-06-20 02:24:00 +02:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bring back component outputs
This change brings back component outputs to the overall system again.
In doing so, it generally overhauls the way we do resource RPCs a bit:
* Instead of RegisterResource and CompleteResource, we call these
BeginRegisterResource and EndRegisterResource, which begins to model
these as effectively "asynchronous" resource requests. This should also
help with parallelism (https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/issues/106).
* Flip the CLI/engine a little on its head. Rather than it driving the
planning and deployment process, we move more to a model where it
simply observes it. This is done by implementing an event handler
interface with three events: OnResourceStepPre, OnResourceStepPost,
and OnResourceComplete. The first two are invoked immediately before
and after any step operation, and the latter is invoked whenever a
EndRegisterResource comes in. The reason for the asymmetry here is
that the checkpointing logic in the deployment engine is largely
untouched (intentionally, as this is a sensitive part of the system),
and so the "begin"/"end" nature doesn't flow through faithfully.
* Also make the engine more event-oriented in its terminology and the
way it handles the incoming BeginRegisterResource and
EndRegisterResource events from the language host. This is the first
step down a long road of incrementally refactoring the engine to work
this way, a necessary prerequisite for parallelism.
2017-11-29 16:42:14 +01:00
|
|
|
// SourceEvent is an event associated with the enumeration of a plan. It is an intent expressed by the source
|
2017-11-21 02:38:09 +01:00
|
|
|
// program, and it is the responsibility of the engine to make it so.
|
Bring back component outputs
This change brings back component outputs to the overall system again.
In doing so, it generally overhauls the way we do resource RPCs a bit:
* Instead of RegisterResource and CompleteResource, we call these
BeginRegisterResource and EndRegisterResource, which begins to model
these as effectively "asynchronous" resource requests. This should also
help with parallelism (https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/issues/106).
* Flip the CLI/engine a little on its head. Rather than it driving the
planning and deployment process, we move more to a model where it
simply observes it. This is done by implementing an event handler
interface with three events: OnResourceStepPre, OnResourceStepPost,
and OnResourceComplete. The first two are invoked immediately before
and after any step operation, and the latter is invoked whenever a
EndRegisterResource comes in. The reason for the asymmetry here is
that the checkpointing logic in the deployment engine is largely
untouched (intentionally, as this is a sensitive part of the system),
and so the "begin"/"end" nature doesn't flow through faithfully.
* Also make the engine more event-oriented in its terminology and the
way it handles the incoming BeginRegisterResource and
EndRegisterResource events from the language host. This is the first
step down a long road of incrementally refactoring the engine to work
this way, a necessary prerequisite for parallelism.
2017-11-29 16:42:14 +01:00
|
|
|
type SourceEvent interface {
|
|
|
|
|
event()
|
2017-11-21 02:38:09 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-11-29 20:27:32 +01:00
|
|
|
// RegisterResourceEvent is a step that asks the engine to provision a resource.
|
|
|
|
|
type RegisterResourceEvent interface {
|
Bring back component outputs
This change brings back component outputs to the overall system again.
In doing so, it generally overhauls the way we do resource RPCs a bit:
* Instead of RegisterResource and CompleteResource, we call these
BeginRegisterResource and EndRegisterResource, which begins to model
these as effectively "asynchronous" resource requests. This should also
help with parallelism (https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/issues/106).
* Flip the CLI/engine a little on its head. Rather than it driving the
planning and deployment process, we move more to a model where it
simply observes it. This is done by implementing an event handler
interface with three events: OnResourceStepPre, OnResourceStepPost,
and OnResourceComplete. The first two are invoked immediately before
and after any step operation, and the latter is invoked whenever a
EndRegisterResource comes in. The reason for the asymmetry here is
that the checkpointing logic in the deployment engine is largely
untouched (intentionally, as this is a sensitive part of the system),
and so the "begin"/"end" nature doesn't flow through faithfully.
* Also make the engine more event-oriented in its terminology and the
way it handles the incoming BeginRegisterResource and
EndRegisterResource events from the language host. This is the first
step down a long road of incrementally refactoring the engine to work
this way, a necessary prerequisite for parallelism.
2017-11-29 16:42:14 +01:00
|
|
|
SourceEvent
|
2017-11-21 02:38:09 +01:00
|
|
|
// Goal returns the goal state for the resource object that was allocated by the program.
|
|
|
|
|
Goal() *resource.Goal
|
|
|
|
|
// Done indicates that we are done with this step. It must be called to perform cleanup associated with the step.
|
2017-11-29 20:27:32 +01:00
|
|
|
Done(result *RegisterResult)
|
2017-11-21 02:38:09 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-11-29 20:27:32 +01:00
|
|
|
// RegisterResult is the state of the resource after it has been registered.
|
|
|
|
|
type RegisterResult struct {
|
|
|
|
|
State *resource.State // the resource state.
|
|
|
|
|
Stable bool // if true, the resource state is stable and may be trusted.
|
|
|
|
|
Stables []resource.PropertyKey // an optional list of specific resource properties that are stable.
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// RegisterResourceOutputsEvent is an event that asks the engine to complete the provisioning of a resource.
|
|
|
|
|
type RegisterResourceOutputsEvent interface {
|
Bring back component outputs
This change brings back component outputs to the overall system again.
In doing so, it generally overhauls the way we do resource RPCs a bit:
* Instead of RegisterResource and CompleteResource, we call these
BeginRegisterResource and EndRegisterResource, which begins to model
these as effectively "asynchronous" resource requests. This should also
help with parallelism (https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/issues/106).
* Flip the CLI/engine a little on its head. Rather than it driving the
planning and deployment process, we move more to a model where it
simply observes it. This is done by implementing an event handler
interface with three events: OnResourceStepPre, OnResourceStepPost,
and OnResourceComplete. The first two are invoked immediately before
and after any step operation, and the latter is invoked whenever a
EndRegisterResource comes in. The reason for the asymmetry here is
that the checkpointing logic in the deployment engine is largely
untouched (intentionally, as this is a sensitive part of the system),
and so the "begin"/"end" nature doesn't flow through faithfully.
* Also make the engine more event-oriented in its terminology and the
way it handles the incoming BeginRegisterResource and
EndRegisterResource events from the language host. This is the first
step down a long road of incrementally refactoring the engine to work
this way, a necessary prerequisite for parallelism.
2017-11-29 16:42:14 +01:00
|
|
|
SourceEvent
|
2017-11-21 02:38:09 +01:00
|
|
|
// URN is the resource URN that this completion applies to.
|
|
|
|
|
URN() resource.URN
|
2017-11-29 20:27:32 +01:00
|
|
|
// Outputs returns a property map of output properties to add to a resource before completing.
|
|
|
|
|
Outputs() resource.PropertyMap
|
2017-11-21 02:38:09 +01:00
|
|
|
// Done indicates that we are done with this step. It must be called to perform cleanup associated with the step.
|
2017-11-29 20:27:32 +01:00
|
|
|
Done()
|
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
|
|
|
}
|
