2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
// Code generated by protoc-gen-go.
|
|
|
|
// source: provider.proto
|
|
|
|
// DO NOT EDIT!
|
|
|
|
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
package lumirpc
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import proto "github.com/golang/protobuf/proto"
|
|
|
|
import fmt "fmt"
|
|
|
|
import math "math"
|
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 google_protobuf1 "github.com/golang/protobuf/ptypes/empty"
|
|
|
|
import google_protobuf "github.com/golang/protobuf/ptypes/struct"
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +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
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
type CheckRequest 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
|
|
|
Type string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=type" json:"type,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Properties *google_protobuf.Struct `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=properties" json:"properties,omitempty"`
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
Unknowns map[string]bool `protobuf:"bytes,3,rep,name=unknowns" json:"unknowns,omitempty" protobuf_key:"bytes,1,opt,name=key" protobuf_val:"varint,2,opt,name=value"`
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CheckRequest) Reset() { *m = CheckRequest{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *CheckRequest) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*CheckRequest) ProtoMessage() {}
|
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
|
|
|
func (*CheckRequest) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{0} }
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CheckRequest) GetType() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Type
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
func (m *CheckRequest) GetProperties() *google_protobuf.Struct {
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Properties
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *CheckRequest) GetUnknowns() map[string]bool {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Unknowns
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
type CheckResponse struct {
|
|
|
|
Failures []*CheckFailure `protobuf:"bytes,1,rep,name=failures" json:"failures,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CheckResponse) Reset() { *m = CheckResponse{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *CheckResponse) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*CheckResponse) ProtoMessage() {}
|
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
|
|
|
func (*CheckResponse) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{1} }
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CheckResponse) GetFailures() []*CheckFailure {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Failures
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type CheckFailure struct {
|
|
|
|
Property string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=property" json:"property,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Reason string `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=reason" json:"reason,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CheckFailure) Reset() { *m = CheckFailure{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *CheckFailure) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*CheckFailure) ProtoMessage() {}
|
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
|
|
|
func (*CheckFailure) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{2} }
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CheckFailure) GetProperty() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Property
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CheckFailure) GetReason() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Reason
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
type NameRequest 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
|
|
|
Type string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=type" json:"type,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Properties *google_protobuf.Struct `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=properties" json:"properties,omitempty"`
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
Unknowns map[string]bool `protobuf:"bytes,3,rep,name=unknowns" json:"unknowns,omitempty" protobuf_key:"bytes,1,opt,name=key" protobuf_val:"varint,2,opt,name=value"`
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *NameRequest) Reset() { *m = NameRequest{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *NameRequest) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*NameRequest) ProtoMessage() {}
|
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
|
|
|
func (*NameRequest) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{3} }
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *NameRequest) GetType() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Type
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
func (m *NameRequest) GetProperties() *google_protobuf.Struct {
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Properties
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *NameRequest) GetUnknowns() map[string]bool {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Unknowns
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
type NameResponse struct {
|
|
|
|
Name string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=name" json:"name,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *NameResponse) Reset() { *m = NameResponse{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *NameResponse) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*NameResponse) ProtoMessage() {}
|
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
|
|
|
func (*NameResponse) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{4} }
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *NameResponse) GetName() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Name
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
type CreateRequest 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
|
|
|
Type string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=type" json:"type,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Properties *google_protobuf.Struct `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=properties" json:"properties,omitempty"`
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CreateRequest) Reset() { *m = CreateRequest{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *CreateRequest) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*CreateRequest) ProtoMessage() {}
|
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
|
|
|
func (*CreateRequest) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{5} }
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CreateRequest) GetType() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Type
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
func (m *CreateRequest) GetProperties() *google_protobuf.Struct {
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Properties
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type CreateResponse struct {
|
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
|
|
|
Id string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=id" json:"id,omitempty"`
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CreateResponse) Reset() { *m = CreateResponse{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *CreateResponse) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*CreateResponse) ProtoMessage() {}
|
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
|
|
|
func (*CreateResponse) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{6} }
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *CreateResponse) GetId() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Id
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
type GetRequest struct {
|
Implement resource provider plugins
This change adds basic support for discovering, loading, binding to,
and invoking RPC methods on, resource provider plugins.
In a nutshell, we add a new context object that will share cached
state such as loaded plugins and connections to them. It will be
a policy decision in server scenarios how much state to share and
between whom. This context also controls per-resource context
allocation, which in the future will allow us to perform structured
cancellation and teardown amongst entire groups of requests.
Plugins are loaded based on their name, and can be found in one of
two ways: either simply by having them on your path (with a name of
"mu-ressrv-<pkg>", where "<pkg>" is the resource package name with
any "/"s replaced with "_"s); or by placing them in the standard
library installation location, which need not be on the path for this
to work (since we know precisely where to look).
If we find a protocol, we will load it as a child process.
The protocol for plugins is that they will choose a port on their
own -- to eliminate races that'd be involved should Mu attempt to
pre-pick one for them -- and then write that out as the first line
to STDOUT (terminated by a "\n"). This is the only STDERR/STDOUT
that Mu cares about; from there, the plugin is free to write all it
pleases (e.g., for logging, debugging purposes, etc).
Afterwards, we then bind our gRPC connection to that port, and create
a typed resource provider client. The CRUD operations that get driven
by plan application are then simple wrappers atop the underlying gRPC
calls. For now, we interpret all errors as catastrophic; in the near
future, we will probably want to introduce a "structured error"
mechanism in the gRPC interface for "transactional errors"; that is,
errors for which the server was able to recover to a safe checkpoint,
which can be interpreted as ResourceOK rather than ResourceUnknown.
2017-02-19 20:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
Id string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=id" json:"id,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Type string `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=type" json:"type,omitempty"`
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *GetRequest) Reset() { *m = GetRequest{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *GetRequest) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*GetRequest) ProtoMessage() {}
|
|
|
|
func (*GetRequest) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{7} }
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *GetRequest) GetId() string {
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Id
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *GetRequest) GetType() string {
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Type
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
type GetResponse 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
|
|
|
Properties *google_protobuf.Struct `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=properties" json:"properties,omitempty"`
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *GetResponse) Reset() { *m = GetResponse{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *GetResponse) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*GetResponse) ProtoMessage() {}
|
|
|
|
func (*GetResponse) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{8} }
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *GetResponse) GetProperties() *google_protobuf.Struct {
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Properties
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
type InspectChangeRequest struct {
|
|
|
|
Id string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=id" json:"id,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Type string `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=type" json:"type,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Olds *google_protobuf.Struct `protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=olds" json:"olds,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
News *google_protobuf.Struct `protobuf:"bytes,4,opt,name=news" json:"news,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Unknowns map[string]bool `protobuf:"bytes,5,rep,name=unknowns" json:"unknowns,omitempty" protobuf_key:"bytes,1,opt,name=key" protobuf_val:"varint,2,opt,name=value"`
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeRequest) Reset() { *m = InspectChangeRequest{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeRequest) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*InspectChangeRequest) ProtoMessage() {}
|
|
|
|
func (*InspectChangeRequest) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{9} }
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeRequest) GetId() string {
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Id
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeRequest) GetType() string {
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Type
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeRequest) GetOlds() *google_protobuf.Struct {
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
2017-02-11 22:14:29 +01:00
|
|
|
return m.Olds
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeRequest) GetNews() *google_protobuf.Struct {
|
2017-02-11 22:14:29 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.News
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeRequest) GetUnknowns() map[string]bool {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Unknowns
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-27 20:18:49 +02:00
|
|
|
type InspectChangeResponse 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
|
|
|
Replaces []string `protobuf:"bytes,1,rep,name=replaces" json:"replaces,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Changes *google_protobuf.Struct `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=changes" json:"changes,omitempty"`
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-27 20:18:49 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeResponse) Reset() { *m = InspectChangeResponse{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeResponse) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*InspectChangeResponse) ProtoMessage() {}
|
|
|
|
func (*InspectChangeResponse) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{10} }
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2017-04-27 20:18:49 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeResponse) GetReplaces() []string {
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
2017-03-03 00:24:39 +01:00
|
|
|
return m.Replaces
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
2017-03-03 00:24:39 +01:00
|
|
|
return nil
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-27 20:18:49 +02:00
|
|
|
func (m *InspectChangeResponse) GetChanges() *google_protobuf.Struct {
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
2017-03-03 00:24:39 +01:00
|
|
|
return m.Changes
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
type UpdateRequest struct {
|
|
|
|
Id string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=id" json:"id,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Type string `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=type" json:"type,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Olds *google_protobuf.Struct `protobuf:"bytes,3,opt,name=olds" json:"olds,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
News *google_protobuf.Struct `protobuf:"bytes,4,opt,name=news" json:"news,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *UpdateRequest) Reset() { *m = UpdateRequest{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *UpdateRequest) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*UpdateRequest) ProtoMessage() {}
|
|
|
|
func (*UpdateRequest) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{11} }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *UpdateRequest) GetId() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Id
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *UpdateRequest) GetType() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Type
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *UpdateRequest) GetOlds() *google_protobuf.Struct {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Olds
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *UpdateRequest) GetNews() *google_protobuf.Struct {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.News
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
type DeleteRequest struct {
|
Implement resource provider plugins
This change adds basic support for discovering, loading, binding to,
and invoking RPC methods on, resource provider plugins.
In a nutshell, we add a new context object that will share cached
state such as loaded plugins and connections to them. It will be
a policy decision in server scenarios how much state to share and
between whom. This context also controls per-resource context
allocation, which in the future will allow us to perform structured
cancellation and teardown amongst entire groups of requests.
Plugins are loaded based on their name, and can be found in one of
two ways: either simply by having them on your path (with a name of
"mu-ressrv-<pkg>", where "<pkg>" is the resource package name with
any "/"s replaced with "_"s); or by placing them in the standard
library installation location, which need not be on the path for this
to work (since we know precisely where to look).
If we find a protocol, we will load it as a child process.
The protocol for plugins is that they will choose a port on their
own -- to eliminate races that'd be involved should Mu attempt to
pre-pick one for them -- and then write that out as the first line
to STDOUT (terminated by a "\n"). This is the only STDERR/STDOUT
that Mu cares about; from there, the plugin is free to write all it
pleases (e.g., for logging, debugging purposes, etc).
Afterwards, we then bind our gRPC connection to that port, and create
a typed resource provider client. The CRUD operations that get driven
by plan application are then simple wrappers atop the underlying gRPC
calls. For now, we interpret all errors as catastrophic; in the near
future, we will probably want to introduce a "structured error"
mechanism in the gRPC interface for "transactional errors"; that is,
errors for which the server was able to recover to a safe checkpoint,
which can be interpreted as ResourceOK rather than ResourceUnknown.
2017-02-19 20:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
Id string `protobuf:"bytes,1,opt,name=id" json:"id,omitempty"`
|
|
|
|
Type string `protobuf:"bytes,2,opt,name=type" json:"type,omitempty"`
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *DeleteRequest) Reset() { *m = DeleteRequest{} }
|
|
|
|
func (m *DeleteRequest) String() string { return proto.CompactTextString(m) }
|
|
|
|
func (*DeleteRequest) ProtoMessage() {}
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (*DeleteRequest) Descriptor() ([]byte, []int) { return fileDescriptor2, []int{12} }
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (m *DeleteRequest) GetId() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Id
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Implement resource provider plugins
This change adds basic support for discovering, loading, binding to,
and invoking RPC methods on, resource provider plugins.
In a nutshell, we add a new context object that will share cached
state such as loaded plugins and connections to them. It will be
a policy decision in server scenarios how much state to share and
between whom. This context also controls per-resource context
allocation, which in the future will allow us to perform structured
cancellation and teardown amongst entire groups of requests.
Plugins are loaded based on their name, and can be found in one of
two ways: either simply by having them on your path (with a name of
"mu-ressrv-<pkg>", where "<pkg>" is the resource package name with
any "/"s replaced with "_"s); or by placing them in the standard
library installation location, which need not be on the path for this
to work (since we know precisely where to look).
If we find a protocol, we will load it as a child process.
The protocol for plugins is that they will choose a port on their
own -- to eliminate races that'd be involved should Mu attempt to
pre-pick one for them -- and then write that out as the first line
to STDOUT (terminated by a "\n"). This is the only STDERR/STDOUT
that Mu cares about; from there, the plugin is free to write all it
pleases (e.g., for logging, debugging purposes, etc).
Afterwards, we then bind our gRPC connection to that port, and create
a typed resource provider client. The CRUD operations that get driven
by plan application are then simple wrappers atop the underlying gRPC
calls. For now, we interpret all errors as catastrophic; in the near
future, we will probably want to introduce a "structured error"
mechanism in the gRPC interface for "transactional errors"; that is,
errors for which the server was able to recover to a safe checkpoint,
which can be interpreted as ResourceOK rather than ResourceUnknown.
2017-02-19 20:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
func (m *DeleteRequest) GetType() string {
|
|
|
|
if m != nil {
|
|
|
|
return m.Type
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return ""
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
func init() {
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*CheckRequest)(nil), "lumirpc.CheckRequest")
|
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*CheckResponse)(nil), "lumirpc.CheckResponse")
|
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*CheckFailure)(nil), "lumirpc.CheckFailure")
|
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*NameRequest)(nil), "lumirpc.NameRequest")
|
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*NameResponse)(nil), "lumirpc.NameResponse")
|
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*CreateRequest)(nil), "lumirpc.CreateRequest")
|
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*CreateResponse)(nil), "lumirpc.CreateResponse")
|
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*GetRequest)(nil), "lumirpc.GetRequest")
|
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*GetResponse)(nil), "lumirpc.GetResponse")
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*InspectChangeRequest)(nil), "lumirpc.InspectChangeRequest")
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*InspectChangeResponse)(nil), "lumirpc.InspectChangeResponse")
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*UpdateRequest)(nil), "lumirpc.UpdateRequest")
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
proto.RegisterType((*DeleteRequest)(nil), "lumirpc.DeleteRequest")
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Client API for ResourceProvider service
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type ResourceProviderClient interface {
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
// Check validates that the given property bag is valid for a resource of the given type.
|
|
|
|
Check(ctx context.Context, in *CheckRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*CheckResponse, error)
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
// Name names a given resource. Sometimes this will be assigned by a developer, and so the provider
|
|
|
|
// simply fetches it from the property bag; other times, the provider will assign this based on its own algorithm.
|
|
|
|
// In any case, resources with the same name must be safe to use interchangeably with one another.
|
|
|
|
Name(ctx context.Context, in *NameRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*NameResponse, error)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
// Create allocates a new instance of the provided resource and returns its unique ID afterwards. (The input ID
|
|
|
|
// must be blank.) If this call fails, the resource must not have been created (i.e., it is "transacational").
|
|
|
|
Create(ctx context.Context, in *CreateRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*CreateResponse, 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
|
|
|
// Get reads the instance state identified by ID, returning a populated resource object, or nil if not found.
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
Get(ctx context.Context, in *GetRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*GetResponse, error)
|
2017-04-27 20:18:49 +02:00
|
|
|
// InspectChange checks what impacts a hypothetical update will have on the resource's properties.
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
InspectChange(ctx context.Context, in *InspectChangeRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*InspectChangeResponse, error)
|
2017-03-02 18:52:08 +01:00
|
|
|
// Update updates an existing resource with new values.
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
Update(ctx context.Context, in *UpdateRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*google_protobuf1.Empty, error)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
// Delete tears down an existing resource with the given ID. If it fails, the resource is assumed to still exist.
|
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
|
|
|
Delete(ctx context.Context, in *DeleteRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*google_protobuf1.Empty, error)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type resourceProviderClient struct {
|
|
|
|
cc *grpc.ClientConn
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func NewResourceProviderClient(cc *grpc.ClientConn) ResourceProviderClient {
|
|
|
|
return &resourceProviderClient{cc}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
func (c *resourceProviderClient) Check(ctx context.Context, in *CheckRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*CheckResponse, error) {
|
|
|
|
out := new(CheckResponse)
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
err := grpc.Invoke(ctx, "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Check", in, out, c.cc, opts...)
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return out, nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
func (c *resourceProviderClient) Name(ctx context.Context, in *NameRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*NameResponse, error) {
|
|
|
|
out := new(NameResponse)
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
err := grpc.Invoke(ctx, "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Name", in, out, c.cc, opts...)
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return out, nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
func (c *resourceProviderClient) Create(ctx context.Context, in *CreateRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*CreateResponse, error) {
|
|
|
|
out := new(CreateResponse)
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
err := grpc.Invoke(ctx, "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Create", in, out, c.cc, opts...)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return out, nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
func (c *resourceProviderClient) Get(ctx context.Context, in *GetRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*GetResponse, error) {
|
|
|
|
out := new(GetResponse)
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
err := grpc.Invoke(ctx, "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Get", in, out, c.cc, opts...)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return out, nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (c *resourceProviderClient) InspectChange(ctx context.Context, in *InspectChangeRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*InspectChangeResponse, error) {
|
2017-04-27 20:18:49 +02:00
|
|
|
out := new(InspectChangeResponse)
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
err := grpc.Invoke(ctx, "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/InspectChange", in, out, c.cc, opts...)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return out, nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
func (c *resourceProviderClient) Update(ctx context.Context, in *UpdateRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*google_protobuf1.Empty, error) {
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
out := new(google_protobuf1.Empty)
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
err := grpc.Invoke(ctx, "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Update", in, out, c.cc, opts...)
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return out, 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
|
|
|
func (c *resourceProviderClient) Delete(ctx context.Context, in *DeleteRequest, opts ...grpc.CallOption) (*google_protobuf1.Empty, error) {
|
|
|
|
out := new(google_protobuf1.Empty)
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
err := grpc.Invoke(ctx, "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Delete", in, out, c.cc, opts...)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return out, nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Server API for ResourceProvider service
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type ResourceProviderServer interface {
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
// Check validates that the given property bag is valid for a resource of the given type.
|
|
|
|
Check(context.Context, *CheckRequest) (*CheckResponse, error)
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
// Name names a given resource. Sometimes this will be assigned by a developer, and so the provider
|
|
|
|
// simply fetches it from the property bag; other times, the provider will assign this based on its own algorithm.
|
|
|
|
// In any case, resources with the same name must be safe to use interchangeably with one another.
|
|
|
|
Name(context.Context, *NameRequest) (*NameResponse, error)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
// Create allocates a new instance of the provided resource and returns its unique ID afterwards. (The input ID
|
|
|
|
// must be blank.) If this call fails, the resource must not have been created (i.e., it is "transacational").
|
|
|
|
Create(context.Context, *CreateRequest) (*CreateResponse, 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
|
|
|
// Get reads the instance state identified by ID, returning a populated resource object, or nil if not found.
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
Get(context.Context, *GetRequest) (*GetResponse, error)
|
2017-04-27 20:18:49 +02:00
|
|
|
// InspectChange checks what impacts a hypothetical update will have on the resource's properties.
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
InspectChange(context.Context, *InspectChangeRequest) (*InspectChangeResponse, error)
|
2017-03-02 18:52:08 +01:00
|
|
|
// Update updates an existing resource with new values.
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
Update(context.Context, *UpdateRequest) (*google_protobuf1.Empty, error)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
// Delete tears down an existing resource with the given ID. If it fails, the resource is assumed to still exist.
|
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
|
|
|
Delete(context.Context, *DeleteRequest) (*google_protobuf1.Empty, error)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func RegisterResourceProviderServer(s *grpc.Server, srv ResourceProviderServer) {
|
|
|
|
s.RegisterService(&_ResourceProvider_serviceDesc, srv)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
func _ResourceProvider_Check_Handler(srv interface{}, ctx context.Context, dec func(interface{}) error, interceptor grpc.UnaryServerInterceptor) (interface{}, error) {
|
|
|
|
in := new(CheckRequest)
|
|
|
|
if err := dec(in); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if interceptor == nil {
|
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Check(ctx, in)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
info := &grpc.UnaryServerInfo{
|
|
|
|
Server: srv,
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
FullMethod: "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Check",
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
handler := func(ctx context.Context, req interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
|
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Check(ctx, req.(*CheckRequest))
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return interceptor(ctx, in, info, handler)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
func _ResourceProvider_Name_Handler(srv interface{}, ctx context.Context, dec func(interface{}) error, interceptor grpc.UnaryServerInterceptor) (interface{}, error) {
|
|
|
|
in := new(NameRequest)
|
|
|
|
if err := dec(in); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if interceptor == nil {
|
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Name(ctx, in)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
info := &grpc.UnaryServerInfo{
|
|
|
|
Server: srv,
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
FullMethod: "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Name",
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
handler := func(ctx context.Context, req interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
|
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Name(ctx, req.(*NameRequest))
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return interceptor(ctx, in, info, handler)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
func _ResourceProvider_Create_Handler(srv interface{}, ctx context.Context, dec func(interface{}) error, interceptor grpc.UnaryServerInterceptor) (interface{}, error) {
|
|
|
|
in := new(CreateRequest)
|
|
|
|
if err := dec(in); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if interceptor == nil {
|
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Create(ctx, in)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
info := &grpc.UnaryServerInfo{
|
|
|
|
Server: srv,
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
FullMethod: "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Create",
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
handler := func(ctx context.Context, req interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
|
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Create(ctx, req.(*CreateRequest))
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return interceptor(ctx, in, info, handler)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
func _ResourceProvider_Get_Handler(srv interface{}, ctx context.Context, dec func(interface{}) error, interceptor grpc.UnaryServerInterceptor) (interface{}, error) {
|
|
|
|
in := new(GetRequest)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if err := dec(in); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if interceptor == nil {
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Get(ctx, in)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
info := &grpc.UnaryServerInfo{
|
|
|
|
Server: srv,
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
FullMethod: "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Get",
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
handler := func(ctx context.Context, req interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Get(ctx, req.(*GetRequest))
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return interceptor(ctx, in, info, handler)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-27 20:18:49 +02:00
|
|
|
func _ResourceProvider_InspectChange_Handler(srv interface{}, ctx context.Context, dec func(interface{}) error, interceptor grpc.UnaryServerInterceptor) (interface{}, error) {
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
in := new(InspectChangeRequest)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
if err := dec(in); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if interceptor == nil {
|
2017-04-27 20:18:49 +02:00
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).InspectChange(ctx, in)
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
info := &grpc.UnaryServerInfo{
|
|
|
|
Server: srv,
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
FullMethod: "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/InspectChange",
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
handler := func(ctx context.Context, req interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).InspectChange(ctx, req.(*InspectChangeRequest))
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return interceptor(ctx, in, info, handler)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
func _ResourceProvider_Update_Handler(srv interface{}, ctx context.Context, dec func(interface{}) error, interceptor grpc.UnaryServerInterceptor) (interface{}, error) {
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
in := new(UpdateRequest)
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
if err := dec(in); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if interceptor == nil {
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Update(ctx, in)
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
info := &grpc.UnaryServerInfo{
|
|
|
|
Server: srv,
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
FullMethod: "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Update",
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
handler := func(ctx context.Context, req interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
|
Initial support for output properties (1 of 3)
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
2017-05-24 02:32:59 +02:00
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Update(ctx, req.(*UpdateRequest))
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return interceptor(ctx, in, info, handler)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
func _ResourceProvider_Delete_Handler(srv interface{}, ctx context.Context, dec func(interface{}) error, interceptor grpc.UnaryServerInterceptor) (interface{}, error) {
|
|
|
|
in := new(DeleteRequest)
|
|
|
|
if err := dec(in); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if interceptor == nil {
|
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Delete(ctx, in)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
info := &grpc.UnaryServerInfo{
|
|
|
|
Server: srv,
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
FullMethod: "/lumirpc.ResourceProvider/Delete",
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
handler := func(ctx context.Context, req interface{}) (interface{}, error) {
|
|
|
|
return srv.(ResourceProviderServer).Delete(ctx, req.(*DeleteRequest))
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return interceptor(ctx, in, info, handler)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var _ResourceProvider_serviceDesc = grpc.ServiceDesc{
|
2017-05-18 20:38:28 +02:00
|
|
|
ServiceName: "lumirpc.ResourceProvider",
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
HandlerType: (*ResourceProviderServer)(nil),
|
|
|
|
Methods: []grpc.MethodDesc{
|
2017-03-03 03:15:38 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
MethodName: "Check",
|
|
|
|
Handler: _ResourceProvider_Check_Handler,
|
|
|
|
},
|
Redo object monikers
This change overhauls the way we do object monikers. The old mechanism,
generating monikers using graph paths, was far too brittle and prone to
collisions. The new approach mixes some amount of "automatic scoping"
plus some "explicit naming." Although there is some explicitness, this
is arguably a good thing, as the monikers will be relatable back to the
source more readily by developers inspecting the graph and resource state.
Each moniker has four parts:
<Namespace>::<AllocModule>::<Type>::<Name>
wherein each element is the following:
<Namespace> The namespace being deployed into
<AllocModule> The module in which the object was allocated
<Type> The type of the resource
<Name> The assigned name of the resource
The <Namespace> is essentially the deployment target -- so "prod",
"stage", etc -- although it is more general purpose to allow for future
namespacing within a target (e.g., "prod/customer1", etc); for now
this is rudimentary, however, see marapongo/mu#94.
The <AllocModule> is the token for the code that contained the 'new'
that led to this object being created. In the future, we may wish to
extend this to also track the module under evaluation. (This is a nice
aspect of monikers; they can become arbitrarily complex, so long as
they are precise, and not prone to false positives/negatives.)
The <Name> warrants more discussion. The resource provider is consulted
via a new gRPC method, Name, that fetches the name. How the provider
does this is entirely up to it. For some resource types, the resource
may have properties that developers must set (e.g., `new Bucket("foo")`);
for other providers, perhaps the resource intrinsically has a property
that explicitly and uniquely qualifies the object (e.g., AWS SecurityGroups,
via `new SecurityGroup({groupName: "my-sg"}`); and finally, it's conceivable
that a provider might auto-generate the name (e.g., such as an AWS Lambda
whose name could simply be a hash of the source code contents).
This should overall produce better results with respect to moniker
collisions, ability to match resources, and the usability of the system.
2017-02-24 23:50:02 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
MethodName: "Name",
|
|
|
|
Handler: _ResourceProvider_Name_Handler,
|
|
|
|
},
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
MethodName: "Create",
|
|
|
|
Handler: _ResourceProvider_Create_Handler,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
MethodName: "Get",
|
|
|
|
Handler: _ResourceProvider_Get_Handler,
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
2017-04-27 20:18:49 +02:00
|
|
|
MethodName: "InspectChange",
|
|
|
|
Handler: _ResourceProvider_InspectChange_Handler,
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
},
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
2017-04-20 23:09:00 +02:00
|
|
|
MethodName: "Update",
|
|
|
|
Handler: _ResourceProvider_Update_Handler,
|
Support replacement IDs
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
2017-03-01 18:08:53 +01:00
|
|
|
},
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
MethodName: "Delete",
|
|
|
|
Handler: _ResourceProvider_Delete_Handler,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
Streams: []grpc.StreamDesc{},
|
|
|
|
Metadata: "provider.proto",
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
func init() { proto.RegisterFile("provider.proto", fileDescriptor2) }
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
var fileDescriptor2 = []byte{
|
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
|
|
|
// 617 bytes of a gzipped FileDescriptorProto
|
|
|
|
0x1f, 0x8b, 0x08, 0x00, 0x00, 0x09, 0x6e, 0x88, 0x02, 0xff, 0xc4, 0x55, 0xcd, 0x4e, 0xdb, 0x40,
|
|
|
|
0x10, 0xae, 0x9d, 0x10, 0xc2, 0x04, 0x47, 0x68, 0x9b, 0x84, 0xc8, 0xfd, 0x51, 0xb4, 0xbd, 0x44,
|
|
|
|
0x42, 0x32, 0x25, 0xa8, 0x2a, 0x02, 0xa9, 0x95, 0x48, 0x21, 0xea, 0xa5, 0x42, 0xae, 0xb8, 0xf5,
|
|
|
|
0x62, 0x9c, 0x49, 0xb0, 0xe2, 0xd8, 0xee, 0x7a, 0x0d, 0xca, 0x43, 0xf4, 0x05, 0xfa, 0x30, 0x7d,
|
|
|
|
0x8d, 0xaa, 0x6f, 0x53, 0x79, 0xbd, 0x59, 0xec, 0x24, 0x40, 0x39, 0x44, 0xbd, 0x79, 0x67, 0xbe,
|
|
|
|
0x99, 0xf9, 0x66, 0xf6, 0x9b, 0x35, 0xd4, 0x23, 0x16, 0xde, 0x78, 0x43, 0x64, 0x56, 0xc4, 0x42,
|
|
|
|
0x1e, 0x92, 0x4d, 0x3f, 0x99, 0x7a, 0x2c, 0x72, 0xcd, 0x17, 0xe3, 0x30, 0x1c, 0xfb, 0xb8, 0x2f,
|
|
|
|
0xcc, 0x57, 0xc9, 0x68, 0x1f, 0xa7, 0x11, 0x9f, 0x65, 0x28, 0xf3, 0xe5, 0xa2, 0x33, 0xe6, 0x2c,
|
|
|
|
0x71, 0x79, 0xe6, 0xa5, 0x7f, 0x34, 0xd8, 0xee, 0x5f, 0xa3, 0x3b, 0xb1, 0xf1, 0x7b, 0x82, 0x31,
|
|
|
|
0x27, 0x04, 0xca, 0x7c, 0x16, 0x61, 0x5b, 0xeb, 0x68, 0xdd, 0x2d, 0x5b, 0x7c, 0x93, 0xf7, 0x00,
|
|
|
|
0x11, 0x0b, 0x23, 0x64, 0xdc, 0xc3, 0xb8, 0xad, 0x77, 0xb4, 0x6e, 0xad, 0xb7, 0x6b, 0x65, 0x79,
|
|
|
|
0xad, 0x79, 0x5e, 0xeb, 0xab, 0xc8, 0x6b, 0xe7, 0xa0, 0xe4, 0x23, 0x54, 0x93, 0x60, 0x12, 0x84,
|
|
|
|
0xb7, 0x41, 0xdc, 0x2e, 0x75, 0x4a, 0xdd, 0x5a, 0xef, 0x8d, 0x25, 0x49, 0x5b, 0xf9, 0xaa, 0xd6,
|
|
|
|
0xa5, 0x44, 0x9d, 0x05, 0x9c, 0xcd, 0x6c, 0x15, 0x64, 0x9e, 0x80, 0x51, 0x70, 0x91, 0x1d, 0x28,
|
|
|
|
0x4d, 0x70, 0x26, 0xd9, 0xa5, 0x9f, 0xa4, 0x01, 0x1b, 0x37, 0x8e, 0x9f, 0xa0, 0xe0, 0x55, 0xb5,
|
|
|
|
0xb3, 0xc3, 0xb1, 0x7e, 0xa4, 0xd1, 0x53, 0x30, 0x64, 0x91, 0x38, 0x0a, 0x83, 0x18, 0xc9, 0x01,
|
|
|
|
0x54, 0x47, 0x8e, 0xe7, 0x27, 0x0c, 0xe3, 0xb6, 0x26, 0xe8, 0x34, 0x8b, 0x74, 0xce, 0x33, 0xaf,
|
|
|
|
0xad, 0x60, 0xf4, 0x54, 0x8e, 0x47, 0x7a, 0x88, 0x09, 0x55, 0xd9, 0xdf, 0x9c, 0x84, 0x3a, 0x93,
|
|
|
|
0x16, 0x54, 0x18, 0x3a, 0x71, 0x18, 0x08, 0x2a, 0x5b, 0xb6, 0x3c, 0xd1, 0xdf, 0x1a, 0xd4, 0xbe,
|
|
|
|
0x38, 0x53, 0x5c, 0xcb, 0x88, 0x3f, 0x2c, 0x8d, 0x98, 0xaa, 0x9e, 0x72, 0x45, 0xd7, 0x33, 0x61,
|
|
|
|
0x0a, 0xdb, 0x59, 0x0d, 0x39, 0x60, 0x02, 0xe5, 0xc0, 0x99, 0xaa, 0xce, 0xd2, 0x6f, 0xfa, 0x0d,
|
|
|
|
0x8c, 0x3e, 0x43, 0x87, 0xaf, 0xa5, 0x7d, 0xda, 0x81, 0xfa, 0x3c, 0xbb, 0xe4, 0x50, 0x07, 0xdd,
|
|
|
|
0x1b, 0xca, 0xe4, 0xba, 0x37, 0xa4, 0x6f, 0x01, 0x06, 0xc8, 0xe7, 0xc5, 0x17, 0xbc, 0x8a, 0x8c,
|
|
|
|
0x7e, 0x47, 0x86, 0x9e, 0x43, 0x4d, 0x44, 0xc8, 0x84, 0x45, 0x6e, 0xda, 0xbf, 0x73, 0xfb, 0xa9,
|
|
|
|
0x43, 0xe3, 0x73, 0x10, 0x47, 0xe8, 0xf2, 0xfe, 0xb5, 0x13, 0x8c, 0xf1, 0x09, 0x24, 0xc8, 0x1e,
|
|
|
|
0x94, 0x43, 0x7f, 0x98, 0xde, 0xe9, 0x83, 0xf5, 0x04, 0x28, 0x05, 0x07, 0x78, 0x1b, 0xb7, 0xcb,
|
|
|
|
0x8f, 0x80, 0x53, 0x10, 0x19, 0xe4, 0x14, 0xb3, 0x21, 0x14, 0xb3, 0xa7, 0x14, 0xb3, 0x8a, 0xee,
|
|
|
|
0x7a, 0xa4, 0x33, 0x82, 0xe6, 0x42, 0x31, 0x39, 0x6e, 0x13, 0xaa, 0x0c, 0x23, 0xdf, 0x71, 0xe5,
|
|
|
|
0x92, 0x6e, 0xd9, 0xea, 0x4c, 0x0e, 0x60, 0xd3, 0x15, 0xe8, 0x47, 0x35, 0x32, 0xc7, 0xd1, 0x1f,
|
|
|
|
0x1a, 0x18, 0x97, 0xd1, 0x30, 0xa7, 0xbf, 0xff, 0x3a, 0x7d, 0x7a, 0x08, 0xc6, 0x27, 0xf4, 0xf1,
|
|
|
|
0x49, 0x74, 0x7a, 0xbf, 0x4a, 0xb0, 0x63, 0x63, 0x1c, 0x26, 0xcc, 0xc5, 0x0b, 0xf9, 0x13, 0x20,
|
|
|
|
0x47, 0xb0, 0x21, 0x9e, 0x26, 0xd2, 0x5c, 0xf9, 0xa6, 0x9a, 0xad, 0x45, 0x73, 0x36, 0x60, 0xfa,
|
|
|
|
0x8c, 0xbc, 0x83, 0x72, 0xba, 0xb6, 0xa4, 0xb1, 0xea, 0xa5, 0x30, 0x9b, 0x0b, 0x56, 0x15, 0x76,
|
|
|
|
0x02, 0x95, 0x6c, 0xd7, 0x48, 0x2e, 0x75, 0x7e, 0xb5, 0xcd, 0xdd, 0x25, 0xbb, 0x0a, 0xee, 0x41,
|
|
|
|
0x69, 0x80, 0x9c, 0x3c, 0x57, 0x88, 0xbb, 0xa5, 0x34, 0x1b, 0x45, 0xa3, 0x8a, 0xb9, 0x00, 0xa3,
|
|
|
|
0xa0, 0x11, 0xf2, 0xea, 0x41, 0xa1, 0x9a, 0xaf, 0xef, 0x73, 0xab, 0x8c, 0xc7, 0x50, 0xc9, 0xc4,
|
|
|
|
0x90, 0x6b, 0xa1, 0xa0, 0x0e, 0xb3, 0xb5, 0x74, 0x7d, 0x67, 0xe9, 0xcf, 0x34, 0x8b, 0xcd, 0x6e,
|
|
|
|
0x2e, 0x17, 0x5b, 0xb8, 0xca, 0xfb, 0x63, 0xaf, 0x2a, 0xc2, 0x72, 0xf8, 0x37, 0x00, 0x00, 0xff,
|
|
|
|
0xff, 0x1d, 0xb0, 0x87, 0x68, 0xc3, 0x07, 0x00, 0x00,
|
2017-02-10 18:08:06 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|