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.
This change guts the deployment planning and execution process, a
necessary component of pulumi/lumi#90.
The major effect of this change is that resources are actually
connected to the live objects, instead of being snapshots taken at
inopportune moments in time.
This change, part of pulumi/lumi#90, overhauls quite a bit of the
core resource, planning, environments, and related areas.
The biggest amount of movement comes from the splitting of pkg/resource
into multiple sub-packages. This results in:
- pkg/resource: just the core resource data structures.
- pkg/resource/deployment: all planning and deployment logic.
- pkg/resource/environment: all environment, configuration, and
serialized checkpoint structures and logic.
- pkg/resource/plugin: all dynamically loaded analyzer and
provider logic, including the actual loading and RPC mechanisms.
This also splits the resource abstraction up. We now have:
- resource.Resource: a shared interface.
- resource.Object: a resource that is connected to a live object
that will periodically observe mutations due to ongoing
evaluation of computations. Snapshots of its state may be
taken; however, this is purely a "pre-planning" abstraction.
- resource.State: a snapshot of a resource's state that is frozen.
In other words, it is no longer connected to a live object.
This is what will store provider outputs (ID and properties),
and is what may be serialized into a deployment record.
The branch is in a half-baked state as of this change; more changes
are to come...
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.
This change does a few things:
* First and foremost, it tracks configuration variables that are
initialized, and optionally prints them out as part of the
prelude/header (based on --show-config), both in a dry-run (plan)
and in an actual deployment (apply).
* It tidies up some of the colorization and messages, and includes
nice banners like "Deploying changes:", etc.
* Fix an assertion.
* Issue a new error
"One or more errors occurred while applying X's configuration"
just to make it easier to distinguish configuration-specific
failures from ordinary ones.
* Change config keys to tokens.Token, not tokens.ModuleMember,
since it is legal for keys to represent class members (statics).
This change adds support for configuration maps.
This is a new feature that permits initialization code to come from markup,
after compilation, but before evaluation. There is nothing special with this
code as it could have been authored by a user. But it offers a convenient
way to specialize configuration settings per target husk, without needing
to write code to specialize each of those husks (which is needlessly complex).
For example, let's say we want to have two husks, one in AWS's us-west-1
region, and the other in us-east-2. From the same source package, we can
just create two husks, let's say "prod-west" and "prod-east":
prod-west.json:
{
"husk": "prod-west",
"config": {
"aws:config:region": "us-west-1"
}
}
prod-east.json:
{
"husk": "prod-east",
"config": {
"aws:config:region": "us-east-2"
}
}
Now when we evaluate these packages, they will automatically poke the
right configuration variables in the AWS package *before* actually
evaluating the CocoJS package contents. As a result, the static variable
"region" in the "aws:config" package will have the desired value.
This is obviously fairly general purpose, but will allow us to experiment
with different schemes and patterns. Also, I need to whip up support
for secrets, but that is a task for another day (perhaps tomorrow).
