pulumi/sdk/nodejs/runtime/invoke.ts

417 lines
16 KiB
TypeScript
Raw Normal View History

// Copyright 2016-2021, Pulumi Corporation.
2018-05-22 21:43:36 +02:00
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
//
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.
import * as grpc from "@grpc/grpc-js";
import * as fs from "fs";
2019-10-22 09:20:26 +02:00
`StreamInvoke` should return `AsyncIterable` that completes A user who calls `StreamInvoke` probably expects the `AsyncIterable` that is returned to gracefully terminate. This is currently not the case. Where does something like this go wrong? A better question might be where any of this went right, because several days later, after wandering into civilization from the great Wilderness of Bugs, I must confess that I've forgotten if any of it had. `AsyncIterable` is a pull-based API. `for await (...)` will continuously call `next` ("pull") on the underlying `AsyncIterator` until the iterable is exhausted. But, gRPC's streaming-return API is _push_ based. That is to say, when a streaming RPC is called, data is provided by callback on the stream object, like: call.on("data", (thing: any) => {... do thing ...}); Our goal in `StreamInvoke` is to convert the push-based gRPC routines into the pull-based `AsyncIterable` retrun type. You may remember your CS theory this is one of those annoying "fundamental mismatches" in abstraction. So we're off to a good start. Until this point, we've depended on a library, `callback-to-async-iterator` to handle the details of being this bridge. Our trusting nature and innocent charm has mislead us. This library is not worthy of our trust. Instead of doing what we'd like it to do, it returns (in our case) an `AsyncIterable` that will never complete. Yes,, this `AsyncIterable` will patiently wait for eternity, which honestly is kind of poetic when you sit down in a nice bath and think about that fun time you considered eating your computer instead of finishing this idiotic bug. Indeed, this is the sort of bug that you wonder where it even comes from. Our query libraries? Why aren't these `finally` blocks executing? Is our language host terminating early? Is gRPC angry at me, and just passive-aggrssively not servicing some of my requests? Oh god I've been up for 48 hours, why is that wallpaper starting to move? And by the way, a fun interlude to take in an otherwise very productive week is to try to understand the gRPC streaming node client, which is code-gen'd, but which also takes the liberty of generating itself at runtime, so that gRPC is code-gen'ing a code-gen routine, which makes the whole thing un-introspectable, un-debuggable, and un-knowable. That's fine, I didn't need to understand any of this anyway, thanks friends. But we've come out the other side knowing that the weak link in this very sorry chain of incredibly weak links, is this dependency. This commit removes this dependency for a better monster: the one we know. It is at this time that I'd like to announce that I am quitting my job at Pulumi. I thank you all for the good times, but mostly, for taking this code over for me.
2019-11-12 00:00:46 +01:00
import { AsyncIterable } from "@pulumi/query/interfaces";
import * as asset from "../asset";
import { Config } from "../config";
Implement first-class providers. (#1695) ### First-Class Providers These changes implement support for first-class providers. First-class providers are provider plugins that are exposed as resources via the Pulumi programming model so that they may be explicitly and multiply instantiated. Each instance of a provider resource may be configured differently, and configuration parameters may be source from the outputs of other resources. ### Provider Plugin Changes In order to accommodate the need to verify and diff provider configuration and configure providers without complete configuration information, these changes adjust the high-level provider plugin interface. Two new methods for validating a provider's configuration and diffing changes to the same have been added (`CheckConfig` and `DiffConfig`, respectively), and the type of the configuration bag accepted by `Configure` has been changed to a `PropertyMap`. These changes have not yet been reflected in the provider plugin gRPC interface. We will do this in a set of follow-up changes. Until then, these methods are implemented by adapters: - `CheckConfig` validates that all configuration parameters are string or unknown properties. This is necessary because existing plugins only accept string-typed configuration values. - `DiffConfig` either returns "never replace" if all configuration values are known or "must replace" if any configuration value is unknown. The justification for this behavior is given [here](https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/pull/1695/files#diff-a6cd5c7f337665f5bb22e92ca5f07537R106) - `Configure` converts the config bag to a legacy config map and configures the provider plugin if all config values are known. If any config value is unknown, the underlying plugin is not configured and the provider may only perform `Check`, `Read`, and `Invoke`, all of which return empty results. We justify this behavior becuase it is only possible during a preview and provides the best experience we can manage with the existing gRPC interface. ### Resource Model Changes Providers are now exposed as resources that participate in a stack's dependency graph. Like other resources, they are explicitly created, may have multiple instances, and may have dependencies on other resources. Providers are referred to using provider references, which are a combination of the provider's URN and its ID. This design addresses the need during a preview to refer to providers that have not yet been physically created and therefore have no ID. All custom resources that are not themselves providers must specify a single provider via a provider reference. The named provider will be used to manage that resource's CRUD operations. If a resource's provider reference changes, the resource must be replaced. Though its URN is not present in the resource's dependency list, the provider should be treated as a dependency of the resource when topologically sorting the dependency graph. Finally, `Invoke` operations must now specify a provider to use for the invocation via a provider reference. ### Engine Changes First-class providers support requires a few changes to the engine: - The engine must have some way to map from provider references to provider plugins. It must be possible to add providers from a stack's checkpoint to this map and to register new/updated providers during the execution of a plan in response to CRUD operations on provider resources. - In order to support updating existing stacks using existing Pulumi programs that may not explicitly instantiate providers, the engine must be able to manage the "default" providers for each package referenced by a checkpoint or Pulumi program. The configuration for a "default" provider is taken from the stack's configuration data. The former need is addressed by adding a provider registry type that is responsible for managing all of the plugins required by a plan. In addition to loading plugins froma checkpoint and providing the ability to map from a provider reference to a provider plugin, this type serves as the provider plugin for providers themselves (i.e. it is the "provider provider"). The latter need is solved via two relatively self-contained changes to plan setup and the eval source. During plan setup, the old checkpoint is scanned for custom resources that do not have a provider reference in order to compute the set of packages that require a default provider. Once this set has been computed, the required default provider definitions are conjured and prepended to the checkpoint's resource list. Each resource that requires a default provider is then updated to refer to the default provider for its package. While an eval source is running, each custom resource registration, resource read, and invoke that does not name a provider is trapped before being returned by the source iterator. If no default provider for the appropriate package has been registered, the eval source synthesizes an appropriate registration, waits for it to complete, and records the registered provider's reference. This reference is injected into the original request, which is then processed as usual. If a default provider was already registered, the recorded reference is used and no new registration occurs. ### SDK Changes These changes only expose first-class providers from the Node.JS SDK. - A new abstract class, `ProviderResource`, can be subclassed and used to instantiate first-class providers. - A new field in `ResourceOptions`, `provider`, can be used to supply a particular provider instance to manage a `CustomResource`'s CRUD operations. - A new type, `InvokeOptions`, can be used to specify options that control the behavior of a call to `pulumi.runtime.invoke`. This type includes a `provider` field that is analogous to `ResourceOptions.provider`.
2018-08-07 02:50:29 +02:00
import { InvokeOptions } from "../invoke";
import * as log from "../log";
import { Inputs, Output } from "../output";
import { debuggablePromise } from "./debuggable";
import { deserializeProperties, isRpcSecret, serializeProperties, serializePropertiesReturnDeps, unwrapRpcSecret } from "./rpc";
import {
excessiveDebugOutput,
getMonitor,
rpcKeepAlive,
terminateRpcs,
} from "./settings";
import { DependencyResource, ProviderResource, Resource } from "../resource";
import * as utils from "../utils";
`StreamInvoke` should return `AsyncIterable` that completes A user who calls `StreamInvoke` probably expects the `AsyncIterable` that is returned to gracefully terminate. This is currently not the case. Where does something like this go wrong? A better question might be where any of this went right, because several days later, after wandering into civilization from the great Wilderness of Bugs, I must confess that I've forgotten if any of it had. `AsyncIterable` is a pull-based API. `for await (...)` will continuously call `next` ("pull") on the underlying `AsyncIterator` until the iterable is exhausted. But, gRPC's streaming-return API is _push_ based. That is to say, when a streaming RPC is called, data is provided by callback on the stream object, like: call.on("data", (thing: any) => {... do thing ...}); Our goal in `StreamInvoke` is to convert the push-based gRPC routines into the pull-based `AsyncIterable` retrun type. You may remember your CS theory this is one of those annoying "fundamental mismatches" in abstraction. So we're off to a good start. Until this point, we've depended on a library, `callback-to-async-iterator` to handle the details of being this bridge. Our trusting nature and innocent charm has mislead us. This library is not worthy of our trust. Instead of doing what we'd like it to do, it returns (in our case) an `AsyncIterable` that will never complete. Yes,, this `AsyncIterable` will patiently wait for eternity, which honestly is kind of poetic when you sit down in a nice bath and think about that fun time you considered eating your computer instead of finishing this idiotic bug. Indeed, this is the sort of bug that you wonder where it even comes from. Our query libraries? Why aren't these `finally` blocks executing? Is our language host terminating early? Is gRPC angry at me, and just passive-aggrssively not servicing some of my requests? Oh god I've been up for 48 hours, why is that wallpaper starting to move? And by the way, a fun interlude to take in an otherwise very productive week is to try to understand the gRPC streaming node client, which is code-gen'd, but which also takes the liberty of generating itself at runtime, so that gRPC is code-gen'ing a code-gen routine, which makes the whole thing un-introspectable, un-debuggable, and un-knowable. That's fine, I didn't need to understand any of this anyway, thanks friends. But we've come out the other side knowing that the weak link in this very sorry chain of incredibly weak links, is this dependency. This commit removes this dependency for a better monster: the one we know. It is at this time that I'd like to announce that I am quitting my job at Pulumi. I thank you all for the good times, but mostly, for taking this code over for me.
2019-11-12 00:00:46 +01:00
import { PushableAsyncIterable } from "./asyncIterableUtil";
const gstruct = require("google-protobuf/google/protobuf/struct_pb.js");
const providerproto = require("../proto/provider_pb.js");
/**
* `invoke` dynamically invokes the function, `tok`, which is offered by a provider plugin. `invoke`
* behaves differently in the case that options contains `{async:true}` or not.
*
* In the case where `{async:true}` is present in the options bag:
*
* 1. the result of `invoke` will be a Promise resolved to the result value of the provider plugin.
* 2. the `props` inputs can be a bag of computed values (including, `T`s, `Promise<T>`s,
* `Output<T>`s etc.).
*
*
* In the case where `{async:true}` is not present in the options bag:
*
* 1. the result of `invoke` will be a Promise resolved to the result value of the provider call.
* However, that Promise will *also* have the respective values of the Provider result exposed
* directly on it as properties.
*
* 2. The inputs must be a bag of simple values, and the result is the result that the Provider
* produced.
*
* Simple values are:
* 1. `undefined`, `null`, string, number or boolean values.
* 2. arrays of simple values.
* 3. objects containing only simple values.
*
* Importantly, simple values do *not* include:
* 1. `Promise`s
* 2. `Output`s
* 3. `Asset`s or `Archive`s
* 4. `Resource`s.
*
* All of these contain async values that would prevent `invoke from being able to operate
* synchronously.
*/
export function invoke(tok: string, props: Inputs, opts: InvokeOptions = {}): Promise<any> {
return invokeAsync(tok, props, opts);
}
export async function streamInvoke(
2019-10-22 09:20:26 +02:00
tok: string,
props: Inputs,
opts: InvokeOptions = {},
): Promise<StreamInvokeResponse<any>> {
const label = `StreamInvoking function: tok=${tok} asynchronously`;
log.debug(label + (excessiveDebugOutput ? `, props=${JSON.stringify(props)}` : ``));
// Wait for all values to be available, and then perform the RPC.
const done = rpcKeepAlive();
try {
const serialized = await serializeProperties(`streamInvoke:${tok}`, props);
log.debug(
`StreamInvoke RPC prepared: tok=${tok}` + excessiveDebugOutput
? `, obj=${JSON.stringify(serialized)}`
: ``,
);
// Fetch the monitor and make an RPC request.
const monitor: any = getMonitor();
const provider = await ProviderResource.register(getProvider(tok, opts));
const req = createInvokeRequest(tok, serialized, provider, opts);
// Call `streamInvoke`.
const result = monitor.streamInvoke(req, {});
`StreamInvoke` should return `AsyncIterable` that completes A user who calls `StreamInvoke` probably expects the `AsyncIterable` that is returned to gracefully terminate. This is currently not the case. Where does something like this go wrong? A better question might be where any of this went right, because several days later, after wandering into civilization from the great Wilderness of Bugs, I must confess that I've forgotten if any of it had. `AsyncIterable` is a pull-based API. `for await (...)` will continuously call `next` ("pull") on the underlying `AsyncIterator` until the iterable is exhausted. But, gRPC's streaming-return API is _push_ based. That is to say, when a streaming RPC is called, data is provided by callback on the stream object, like: call.on("data", (thing: any) => {... do thing ...}); Our goal in `StreamInvoke` is to convert the push-based gRPC routines into the pull-based `AsyncIterable` retrun type. You may remember your CS theory this is one of those annoying "fundamental mismatches" in abstraction. So we're off to a good start. Until this point, we've depended on a library, `callback-to-async-iterator` to handle the details of being this bridge. Our trusting nature and innocent charm has mislead us. This library is not worthy of our trust. Instead of doing what we'd like it to do, it returns (in our case) an `AsyncIterable` that will never complete. Yes,, this `AsyncIterable` will patiently wait for eternity, which honestly is kind of poetic when you sit down in a nice bath and think about that fun time you considered eating your computer instead of finishing this idiotic bug. Indeed, this is the sort of bug that you wonder where it even comes from. Our query libraries? Why aren't these `finally` blocks executing? Is our language host terminating early? Is gRPC angry at me, and just passive-aggrssively not servicing some of my requests? Oh god I've been up for 48 hours, why is that wallpaper starting to move? And by the way, a fun interlude to take in an otherwise very productive week is to try to understand the gRPC streaming node client, which is code-gen'd, but which also takes the liberty of generating itself at runtime, so that gRPC is code-gen'ing a code-gen routine, which makes the whole thing un-introspectable, un-debuggable, and un-knowable. That's fine, I didn't need to understand any of this anyway, thanks friends. But we've come out the other side knowing that the weak link in this very sorry chain of incredibly weak links, is this dependency. This commit removes this dependency for a better monster: the one we know. It is at this time that I'd like to announce that I am quitting my job at Pulumi. I thank you all for the good times, but mostly, for taking this code over for me.
2019-11-12 00:00:46 +01:00
const queue = new PushableAsyncIterable();
result.on("data", function(thing: any) {
`StreamInvoke` should return `AsyncIterable` that completes A user who calls `StreamInvoke` probably expects the `AsyncIterable` that is returned to gracefully terminate. This is currently not the case. Where does something like this go wrong? A better question might be where any of this went right, because several days later, after wandering into civilization from the great Wilderness of Bugs, I must confess that I've forgotten if any of it had. `AsyncIterable` is a pull-based API. `for await (...)` will continuously call `next` ("pull") on the underlying `AsyncIterator` until the iterable is exhausted. But, gRPC's streaming-return API is _push_ based. That is to say, when a streaming RPC is called, data is provided by callback on the stream object, like: call.on("data", (thing: any) => {... do thing ...}); Our goal in `StreamInvoke` is to convert the push-based gRPC routines into the pull-based `AsyncIterable` retrun type. You may remember your CS theory this is one of those annoying "fundamental mismatches" in abstraction. So we're off to a good start. Until this point, we've depended on a library, `callback-to-async-iterator` to handle the details of being this bridge. Our trusting nature and innocent charm has mislead us. This library is not worthy of our trust. Instead of doing what we'd like it to do, it returns (in our case) an `AsyncIterable` that will never complete. Yes,, this `AsyncIterable` will patiently wait for eternity, which honestly is kind of poetic when you sit down in a nice bath and think about that fun time you considered eating your computer instead of finishing this idiotic bug. Indeed, this is the sort of bug that you wonder where it even comes from. Our query libraries? Why aren't these `finally` blocks executing? Is our language host terminating early? Is gRPC angry at me, and just passive-aggrssively not servicing some of my requests? Oh god I've been up for 48 hours, why is that wallpaper starting to move? And by the way, a fun interlude to take in an otherwise very productive week is to try to understand the gRPC streaming node client, which is code-gen'd, but which also takes the liberty of generating itself at runtime, so that gRPC is code-gen'ing a code-gen routine, which makes the whole thing un-introspectable, un-debuggable, and un-knowable. That's fine, I didn't need to understand any of this anyway, thanks friends. But we've come out the other side knowing that the weak link in this very sorry chain of incredibly weak links, is this dependency. This commit removes this dependency for a better monster: the one we know. It is at this time that I'd like to announce that I am quitting my job at Pulumi. I thank you all for the good times, but mostly, for taking this code over for me.
2019-11-12 00:00:46 +01:00
const live = deserializeResponse(tok, thing);
queue.push(live);
});
result.on("error", (err: any) => {
if (err.code === 1) {
`StreamInvoke` should return `AsyncIterable` that completes A user who calls `StreamInvoke` probably expects the `AsyncIterable` that is returned to gracefully terminate. This is currently not the case. Where does something like this go wrong? A better question might be where any of this went right, because several days later, after wandering into civilization from the great Wilderness of Bugs, I must confess that I've forgotten if any of it had. `AsyncIterable` is a pull-based API. `for await (...)` will continuously call `next` ("pull") on the underlying `AsyncIterator` until the iterable is exhausted. But, gRPC's streaming-return API is _push_ based. That is to say, when a streaming RPC is called, data is provided by callback on the stream object, like: call.on("data", (thing: any) => {... do thing ...}); Our goal in `StreamInvoke` is to convert the push-based gRPC routines into the pull-based `AsyncIterable` retrun type. You may remember your CS theory this is one of those annoying "fundamental mismatches" in abstraction. So we're off to a good start. Until this point, we've depended on a library, `callback-to-async-iterator` to handle the details of being this bridge. Our trusting nature and innocent charm has mislead us. This library is not worthy of our trust. Instead of doing what we'd like it to do, it returns (in our case) an `AsyncIterable` that will never complete. Yes,, this `AsyncIterable` will patiently wait for eternity, which honestly is kind of poetic when you sit down in a nice bath and think about that fun time you considered eating your computer instead of finishing this idiotic bug. Indeed, this is the sort of bug that you wonder where it even comes from. Our query libraries? Why aren't these `finally` blocks executing? Is our language host terminating early? Is gRPC angry at me, and just passive-aggrssively not servicing some of my requests? Oh god I've been up for 48 hours, why is that wallpaper starting to move? And by the way, a fun interlude to take in an otherwise very productive week is to try to understand the gRPC streaming node client, which is code-gen'd, but which also takes the liberty of generating itself at runtime, so that gRPC is code-gen'ing a code-gen routine, which makes the whole thing un-introspectable, un-debuggable, and un-knowable. That's fine, I didn't need to understand any of this anyway, thanks friends. But we've come out the other side knowing that the weak link in this very sorry chain of incredibly weak links, is this dependency. This commit removes this dependency for a better monster: the one we know. It is at this time that I'd like to announce that I am quitting my job at Pulumi. I thank you all for the good times, but mostly, for taking this code over for me.
2019-11-12 00:00:46 +01:00
return;
}
throw err;
});
result.on("end", () => {
`StreamInvoke` should return `AsyncIterable` that completes A user who calls `StreamInvoke` probably expects the `AsyncIterable` that is returned to gracefully terminate. This is currently not the case. Where does something like this go wrong? A better question might be where any of this went right, because several days later, after wandering into civilization from the great Wilderness of Bugs, I must confess that I've forgotten if any of it had. `AsyncIterable` is a pull-based API. `for await (...)` will continuously call `next` ("pull") on the underlying `AsyncIterator` until the iterable is exhausted. But, gRPC's streaming-return API is _push_ based. That is to say, when a streaming RPC is called, data is provided by callback on the stream object, like: call.on("data", (thing: any) => {... do thing ...}); Our goal in `StreamInvoke` is to convert the push-based gRPC routines into the pull-based `AsyncIterable` retrun type. You may remember your CS theory this is one of those annoying "fundamental mismatches" in abstraction. So we're off to a good start. Until this point, we've depended on a library, `callback-to-async-iterator` to handle the details of being this bridge. Our trusting nature and innocent charm has mislead us. This library is not worthy of our trust. Instead of doing what we'd like it to do, it returns (in our case) an `AsyncIterable` that will never complete. Yes,, this `AsyncIterable` will patiently wait for eternity, which honestly is kind of poetic when you sit down in a nice bath and think about that fun time you considered eating your computer instead of finishing this idiotic bug. Indeed, this is the sort of bug that you wonder where it even comes from. Our query libraries? Why aren't these `finally` blocks executing? Is our language host terminating early? Is gRPC angry at me, and just passive-aggrssively not servicing some of my requests? Oh god I've been up for 48 hours, why is that wallpaper starting to move? And by the way, a fun interlude to take in an otherwise very productive week is to try to understand the gRPC streaming node client, which is code-gen'd, but which also takes the liberty of generating itself at runtime, so that gRPC is code-gen'ing a code-gen routine, which makes the whole thing un-introspectable, un-debuggable, and un-knowable. That's fine, I didn't need to understand any of this anyway, thanks friends. But we've come out the other side knowing that the weak link in this very sorry chain of incredibly weak links, is this dependency. This commit removes this dependency for a better monster: the one we know. It is at this time that I'd like to announce that I am quitting my job at Pulumi. I thank you all for the good times, but mostly, for taking this code over for me.
2019-11-12 00:00:46 +01:00
queue.complete();
});
2019-10-22 09:20:26 +02:00
// Return a cancellable handle to the stream.
return new StreamInvokeResponse(
`StreamInvoke` should return `AsyncIterable` that completes A user who calls `StreamInvoke` probably expects the `AsyncIterable` that is returned to gracefully terminate. This is currently not the case. Where does something like this go wrong? A better question might be where any of this went right, because several days later, after wandering into civilization from the great Wilderness of Bugs, I must confess that I've forgotten if any of it had. `AsyncIterable` is a pull-based API. `for await (...)` will continuously call `next` ("pull") on the underlying `AsyncIterator` until the iterable is exhausted. But, gRPC's streaming-return API is _push_ based. That is to say, when a streaming RPC is called, data is provided by callback on the stream object, like: call.on("data", (thing: any) => {... do thing ...}); Our goal in `StreamInvoke` is to convert the push-based gRPC routines into the pull-based `AsyncIterable` retrun type. You may remember your CS theory this is one of those annoying "fundamental mismatches" in abstraction. So we're off to a good start. Until this point, we've depended on a library, `callback-to-async-iterator` to handle the details of being this bridge. Our trusting nature and innocent charm has mislead us. This library is not worthy of our trust. Instead of doing what we'd like it to do, it returns (in our case) an `AsyncIterable` that will never complete. Yes,, this `AsyncIterable` will patiently wait for eternity, which honestly is kind of poetic when you sit down in a nice bath and think about that fun time you considered eating your computer instead of finishing this idiotic bug. Indeed, this is the sort of bug that you wonder where it even comes from. Our query libraries? Why aren't these `finally` blocks executing? Is our language host terminating early? Is gRPC angry at me, and just passive-aggrssively not servicing some of my requests? Oh god I've been up for 48 hours, why is that wallpaper starting to move? And by the way, a fun interlude to take in an otherwise very productive week is to try to understand the gRPC streaming node client, which is code-gen'd, but which also takes the liberty of generating itself at runtime, so that gRPC is code-gen'ing a code-gen routine, which makes the whole thing un-introspectable, un-debuggable, and un-knowable. That's fine, I didn't need to understand any of this anyway, thanks friends. But we've come out the other side knowing that the weak link in this very sorry chain of incredibly weak links, is this dependency. This commit removes this dependency for a better monster: the one we know. It is at this time that I'd like to announce that I am quitting my job at Pulumi. I thank you all for the good times, but mostly, for taking this code over for me.
2019-11-12 00:00:46 +01:00
queue,
() => result.cancel());
} finally {
done();
}
2019-10-22 09:20:26 +02:00
}
async function invokeAsync(tok: string, props: Inputs, opts: InvokeOptions): Promise<any> {
const label = `Invoking function: tok=${tok} asynchronously`;
log.debug(label + (excessiveDebugOutput ? `, props=${JSON.stringify(props)}` : ``));
// Wait for all values to be available, and then perform the RPC.
const done = rpcKeepAlive();
try {
const serialized = await serializeProperties(`invoke:${tok}`, props);
log.debug(`Invoke RPC prepared: tok=${tok}` + excessiveDebugOutput ? `, obj=${JSON.stringify(serialized)}` : ``);
// Fetch the monitor and make an RPC request.
const monitor: any = getMonitor();
const provider = await ProviderResource.register(getProvider(tok, opts));
const req = createInvokeRequest(tok, serialized, provider, opts);
Implement first-class providers. (#1695) ### First-Class Providers These changes implement support for first-class providers. First-class providers are provider plugins that are exposed as resources via the Pulumi programming model so that they may be explicitly and multiply instantiated. Each instance of a provider resource may be configured differently, and configuration parameters may be source from the outputs of other resources. ### Provider Plugin Changes In order to accommodate the need to verify and diff provider configuration and configure providers without complete configuration information, these changes adjust the high-level provider plugin interface. Two new methods for validating a provider's configuration and diffing changes to the same have been added (`CheckConfig` and `DiffConfig`, respectively), and the type of the configuration bag accepted by `Configure` has been changed to a `PropertyMap`. These changes have not yet been reflected in the provider plugin gRPC interface. We will do this in a set of follow-up changes. Until then, these methods are implemented by adapters: - `CheckConfig` validates that all configuration parameters are string or unknown properties. This is necessary because existing plugins only accept string-typed configuration values. - `DiffConfig` either returns "never replace" if all configuration values are known or "must replace" if any configuration value is unknown. The justification for this behavior is given [here](https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/pull/1695/files#diff-a6cd5c7f337665f5bb22e92ca5f07537R106) - `Configure` converts the config bag to a legacy config map and configures the provider plugin if all config values are known. If any config value is unknown, the underlying plugin is not configured and the provider may only perform `Check`, `Read`, and `Invoke`, all of which return empty results. We justify this behavior becuase it is only possible during a preview and provides the best experience we can manage with the existing gRPC interface. ### Resource Model Changes Providers are now exposed as resources that participate in a stack's dependency graph. Like other resources, they are explicitly created, may have multiple instances, and may have dependencies on other resources. Providers are referred to using provider references, which are a combination of the provider's URN and its ID. This design addresses the need during a preview to refer to providers that have not yet been physically created and therefore have no ID. All custom resources that are not themselves providers must specify a single provider via a provider reference. The named provider will be used to manage that resource's CRUD operations. If a resource's provider reference changes, the resource must be replaced. Though its URN is not present in the resource's dependency list, the provider should be treated as a dependency of the resource when topologically sorting the dependency graph. Finally, `Invoke` operations must now specify a provider to use for the invocation via a provider reference. ### Engine Changes First-class providers support requires a few changes to the engine: - The engine must have some way to map from provider references to provider plugins. It must be possible to add providers from a stack's checkpoint to this map and to register new/updated providers during the execution of a plan in response to CRUD operations on provider resources. - In order to support updating existing stacks using existing Pulumi programs that may not explicitly instantiate providers, the engine must be able to manage the "default" providers for each package referenced by a checkpoint or Pulumi program. The configuration for a "default" provider is taken from the stack's configuration data. The former need is addressed by adding a provider registry type that is responsible for managing all of the plugins required by a plan. In addition to loading plugins froma checkpoint and providing the ability to map from a provider reference to a provider plugin, this type serves as the provider plugin for providers themselves (i.e. it is the "provider provider"). The latter need is solved via two relatively self-contained changes to plan setup and the eval source. During plan setup, the old checkpoint is scanned for custom resources that do not have a provider reference in order to compute the set of packages that require a default provider. Once this set has been computed, the required default provider definitions are conjured and prepended to the checkpoint's resource list. Each resource that requires a default provider is then updated to refer to the default provider for its package. While an eval source is running, each custom resource registration, resource read, and invoke that does not name a provider is trapped before being returned by the source iterator. If no default provider for the appropriate package has been registered, the eval source synthesizes an appropriate registration, waits for it to complete, and records the registered provider's reference. This reference is injected into the original request, which is then processed as usual. If a default provider was already registered, the recorded reference is used and no new registration occurs. ### SDK Changes These changes only expose first-class providers from the Node.JS SDK. - A new abstract class, `ProviderResource`, can be subclassed and used to instantiate first-class providers. - A new field in `ResourceOptions`, `provider`, can be used to supply a particular provider instance to manage a `CustomResource`'s CRUD operations. - A new type, `InvokeOptions`, can be used to specify options that control the behavior of a call to `pulumi.runtime.invoke`. This type includes a `provider` field that is analogous to `ResourceOptions.provider`.
2018-08-07 02:50:29 +02:00
const resp: any = await debuggablePromise(new Promise((innerResolve, innerReject) =>
monitor.invoke(req, (err: grpc.ServiceError, innerResponse: any) => {
log.debug(`Invoke RPC finished: tok=${tok}; err: ${err}, resp: ${innerResponse}`);
if (err) {
// If the monitor is unavailable, it is in the process of shutting down or has already
// shut down. Don't emit an error and don't do any more RPCs, just exit.
if (err.code === grpc.status.UNAVAILABLE || err.code === grpc.status.CANCELLED) {
terminateRpcs();
err.message = "Resource monitor is terminating";
innerReject(err);
return;
}
// If the RPC failed, rethrow the error with a native exception and the message that
// the engine provided - it's suitable for user presentation.
innerReject(new Error(err.details));
}
else {
innerResolve(innerResponse);
}
})), label);
// Finally propagate any other properties that were given to us as outputs.
return deserializeResponse(tok, resp);
}
finally {
done();
}
}
// StreamInvokeResponse represents a (potentially infinite) streaming response to `streamInvoke`,
// with facilities to gracefully cancel and clean up the stream.
export class StreamInvokeResponse<T> implements AsyncIterable<T> {
constructor(
private source: AsyncIterable<T>,
private cancelSource: () => void,
) {}
// cancel signals the `streamInvoke` should be cancelled and cleaned up gracefully.
public cancel() {
this.cancelSource();
}
2019-10-22 09:20:26 +02:00
[Symbol.asyncIterator]() {
return this.source[Symbol.asyncIterator]();
2019-10-22 09:20:26 +02:00
}
}
function createInvokeRequest(tok: string, serialized: any, provider: string | undefined, opts: InvokeOptions) {
if (provider !== undefined && typeof provider !== "string") {
throw new Error("Incorrect provider type.");
}
const obj = gstruct.Struct.fromJavaScript(serialized);
const req = new providerproto.InvokeRequest();
req.setTok(tok);
req.setArgs(obj);
req.setProvider(provider);
req.setVersion(opts.version || "");
req.setAcceptresources(!utils.disableResourceReferences);
return req;
}
function getProvider(tok: string, opts: InvokeOptions) {
return opts.provider ? opts.provider :
opts.parent ? opts.parent.getProvider(tok) : undefined;
}
function deserializeResponse(tok: string, resp: any): any {
const failures: any = resp.getFailuresList();
if (failures && failures.length) {
let reasons = "";
for (let i = 0; i < failures.length; i++) {
if (reasons !== "") {
reasons += "; ";
}
reasons += `${failures[i].getReason()} (${failures[i].getProperty()})`;
}
throw new Error(`Invoke of '${tok}' failed: ${reasons}`);
}
const ret = resp.getReturn();
return ret === undefined
? ret
: deserializeProperties(ret);
}
/**
* `call` dynamically calls the function, `tok`, which is offered by a provider plugin.
*/
export function call<T>(tok: string, props: Inputs, res?: Resource): Output<T> {
const label = `Calling function: tok=${tok}`;
log.debug(label + (excessiveDebugOutput ? `, props=${JSON.stringify(props)}` : ``));
const [out, resolver] = createOutput<T>(`call(${tok})`);
debuggablePromise(Promise.resolve().then(async () => {
const done = rpcKeepAlive();
try {
// Construct a provider reference from the given provider, if one is available on the resource.
let provider: string | undefined = undefined;
let version: string | undefined = undefined;
if (res) {
if (res.__prov) {
provider = await ProviderResource.register(res.__prov);
}
version = res.__version;
}
// We keep output values when serializing inputs for call.
const [serialized, propertyDepsResources] = await serializePropertiesReturnDeps(`call:${tok}`, props, {
keepOutputValues: true,
});
log.debug(`Call RPC prepared: tok=${tok}` + excessiveDebugOutput ? `, obj=${JSON.stringify(serialized)}` : ``);
const req = await createCallRequest(tok, serialized, propertyDepsResources, provider, version);
const monitor: any = getMonitor();
const resp: any = await debuggablePromise(new Promise((innerResolve, innerReject) =>
monitor.call(req, (err: grpc.ServiceError, innerResponse: any) => {
log.debug(`Call RPC finished: tok=${tok}; err: ${err}, resp: ${innerResponse}`);
if (err) {
// If the monitor is unavailable, it is in the process of shutting down or has already
// shut down. Don't emit an error and don't do any more RPCs, just exit.
if (err.code === grpc.status.UNAVAILABLE || err.code === grpc.status.CANCELLED) {
terminateRpcs();
err.message = "Resource monitor is terminating";
innerReject(err);
return;
}
// If the RPC failed, rethrow the error with a native exception and the message that
// the engine provided - it's suitable for user presentation.
innerReject(new Error(err.details));
}
else {
innerResolve(innerResponse);
}
})), label);
// Deserialize the response and resolve the output.
const deserialized = deserializeResponse(tok, resp);
let isSecret = false;
const deps: Resource[] = [];
// Keep track of whether we need to mark the resulting output a secret.
// and unwrap each individual value.
for (const k of Object.keys(deserialized)) {
const v = deserialized[k];
if (isRpcSecret(v)) {
isSecret = true;
deserialized[k] = unwrapRpcSecret(v);
}
}
// Combine the individual dependencies into a single set of dependency resources.
const rpcDeps = resp.getReturndependenciesMap();
if (rpcDeps) {
const urns = new Set<string>();
for (const [k, returnDeps] of rpcDeps.entries()) {
for (const urn of returnDeps.getUrnsList()) {
urns.add(urn);
}
}
for (const urn of urns) {
deps.push(new DependencyResource(urn));
}
}
// If the value the engine handed back is or contains an unknown value, the resolver will mark its value as
// unknown automatically, so we just pass true for isKnown here. Note that unknown values will only be
// present during previews (i.e. isDryRun() will be true).
resolver(deserialized, true, isSecret, deps);
}
catch (e) {
resolver(<any>undefined, true, false, undefined, e);
}
finally {
done();
}
}), label);
return out;
}
function createOutput<T>(label: string):
[Output<T>, (v: T, isKnown: boolean, isSecret: boolean, deps?: Resource[], err?: Error | undefined) => void] {
let resolveValue: (v: T) => void;
let rejectValue: (err: Error) => void;
let resolveIsKnown: (v: boolean) => void;
let rejectIsKnown: (err: Error) => void;
let resolveIsSecret: (v: boolean) => void;
let rejectIsSecret: (err: Error) => void;
let resolveDeps: (v: Resource[]) => void;
let rejectDeps: (err: Error) => void;
const resolver = (v: T, isKnown: boolean, isSecret: boolean, deps: Resource[] = [], err?: Error) => {
if (!!err) {
rejectValue(err);
rejectIsKnown(err);
rejectIsSecret(err);
rejectDeps(err);
} else {
resolveValue(v);
resolveIsKnown(isKnown);
resolveIsSecret(isSecret);
resolveDeps(deps);
}
};
const out = new Output(
[],
debuggablePromise(
new Promise<T>((resolve, reject) => {
resolveValue = resolve;
rejectValue = reject;
}),
`${label}Value`),
debuggablePromise(
new Promise<boolean>((resolve, reject) => {
resolveIsKnown = resolve;
rejectIsKnown = reject;
}),
`${label}IsKnown`),
debuggablePromise(
new Promise<boolean>((resolve, reject) => {
resolveIsSecret = resolve;
rejectIsSecret = reject;
}),
`${label}IsSecret`),
debuggablePromise(
new Promise<Resource[]>((resolve, reject) => {
resolveDeps = resolve;
rejectDeps = reject;
}),
`${label}Deps`));
return [out, resolver];
}
async function createCallRequest(tok: string, serialized: Record<string, any>,
serializedDeps: Map<string, Set<Resource>>, provider?: string, version?: string) {
if (provider !== undefined && typeof provider !== "string") {
throw new Error("Incorrect provider type.");
}
const obj = gstruct.Struct.fromJavaScript(serialized);
const req = new providerproto.CallRequest();
req.setTok(tok);
req.setArgs(obj);
req.setProvider(provider);
req.setVersion(version || "");
const argDependencies = req.getArgdependenciesMap();
for (const [key, propertyDeps] of serializedDeps) {
const urns = new Set<string>();
for (const dep of propertyDeps) {
const urn = await dep.urn.promise();
urns.add(urn);
}
const deps = new providerproto.CallRequest.ArgumentDependencies();
deps.setUrnsList(Array.from(urns));
argDependencies.set(key, deps);
}
return req;
}